The Queen and her powers

[Edie]

How much real power does the Queen have? On the royal.gov.uk site which I'm reading it says:

The formal phrase 'Queen in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Queen's duties include opening each new session of Parliament, dissolving Parliament before a general election, and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council.

The Queen also has a special relationship with the Prime Minister, retaining the right to appoint and also meeting with him or her on a regular basis.

but what does that MEAN? Can she stop laws? (I have no idea what approving Orders and Proclamations through Privy Council means ). HAS she ever stopped laws (or bills?) being passed by Government? Or excersised her 'right to appoint' a prime minister? (or any of the monarchs before her- how long has it been a 'Constitutional Monarchy'?).

Also, I hadn't really realised she was also the Queen of Commonwealth countries like Australia/ NZ/ Canada/ Jamaica. What significance does the Commonwealth have nowadays?

 

[binka]

How much real power does the Queen have?

well obviously shape shifting is the big one but she can also dislocate her jaw and swallow her prey whole

 

[Edie]

well obviously shape shifting is the big one but she can also dislocate her jaw and swallow her prey whole

 

[19sixtysix]

Also, I hadn't really realised she was also the Queen of Commonwealth countries like Australia/ NZ/ Canada/ Jamaica. What significance does the Commonwealth have nowadays?

Her governor performed a tory (liberals in Oz) coup in the 70s overthrowing the elected prime minister.

 

[Roadkill]

well obviously shape shifting is the big one but she can also dislocate her jaw and swallow her prey whole

 

[fredfelt]

The Queen used 'her' special powers in 2004 to once again to pull a fast one over the islanders of Diego Garcia. Some more info here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm

 

[Edie]

The Queen used 'her' special powers in 2004 to once again to pull a fast one over the islanders of Diego Garcia. Some more info here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm

"The whole Chagossian population was forcibly removed from our homes, our animals were killed and we were dumped, mainly in the slums of Mauritius. We have been treated like slaves."
The exiled residents had hoped that if the Law Lords ruling had gone in their favour, their heritage could be rebuilt around a new tourist industry.
The Chagossians will require immigration consent to visit the islands for purposes such as tending graves, but the government has made it clear that consent would be no more than a formality.

A fucking FORMALITY!

 

[19sixtysix]

The Queen used 'her' special powers in 2004 to once again to pull a fast one over the islanders of Diego Garcia. Some more info here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm

Basically an act of genocide without the honesty of actually murdering the people of Diego Garcia.

 

[audiotech]

 

[danny la rouge]

Her governor performed a tory (liberals in Oz) coup in the 70s overthrowing the elected prime minister.

Yup, 66 is right, Edie. The Queen, through the Governor General, dismissed the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and dissolved parliament. This asserted the power of the Crown over the elected representatives. This shows that the sovereignty of the Crown isn't just "theoretical".

Even in Westminster sovereignty emanates from the Monarch, not from the electorate. Power resides in something called the Crown-in-Parliament. That is what makes Acts of Parliament "legitimate", not any manner of public mandate. That's why government ministers are formally called Ministers of the Crown.

In other words, it is the Queen's Magic that gives government the right to govern, and it is the Queen's Magic that allows Acts to be enacted.

 

[geminisnake]

So by doing FECK all about the current bunch of clowns she is guilty of not giving a Feck about her country imo.

 

[danny la rouge]

Has Peter Dow got your log in?

 

[geminisnake]

No. I'm just really pissed off with the whole olympics/jubilee/austerity bollocks and her/her advisors total inability to spot a right bunch of wankers for the last 10+ years. Self interested, money grabbing stupid cunts the lot of them

Tony & Geordie let the banks run riot and Dave is just a total tosspot!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Has Peter Dow got your log in?

Why, has gem got the hots for Condi Rice?

 

[nino_savatte]

The sooner we get rid of these inbred halfwits the better. Grafting US style political systems (elected mayors, police commissioners etc) onto the current system will not address voter apathy as Hannan and Carswell suggest in The Plan (from which many government policies have originated).

 

[danny la rouge]

Self interested, money grabbing stupid cunts the lot of them

Spot on.

 

[danny la rouge]

The sooner we get rid of these inbred halfwits the better. Grafting US style political systems (elected mayors, police commissioners etc) onto the current system will not address voter apathy as Hannan and Carswell suggest in The Plan (from which many government policies have originated).

If they really think non voters are "apathetic", then they've got their heads up their arses. If they think electing mayors is a way to make people who are apathetic about electing suddenly get a taste for electing, then they're stupid beyond belief.

They know very well that "apathy" is not their problem.

 

[nino_savatte]

If they really think non voters are "apathetic", then they've got their heads up their arses. If they think electing mayors is a way to make people who are apathetic about electing suddenly get a taste for electing, then they're stupid beyond belief.

They know very well that "apathy" is not their problem.

There are some truly breathtaking assumptions in the book as well as some really insane ideas.

 

[Chz]

The Queen's powers exist, certainly. But only at the behest of Parliament. Make no mistake, Parliament's powers are absolute in the UK. If they play along with the whole monarchy thing, it's because they feel like continuing the illusion.

In theory, there are limits to parliamentary power. But the catch is that Parliament has the power to pass its own laws to change that. So whatever limits do exist are, like the monarchy, there for show only.

 

[youngian]

Can someone remind me, has parliament ever ratified the war in Afghanistan or are British troops still there through Blair excercising the Royal Perogative? (as he would of done over Iraq if he wasn't dragged kicking into having a parliamentary debate).

Also doesn't the queen refuse to retire because she believes she was annointed by god at her coronation?

 

[Garek]

Yup, 66 is right, Edie. The Queen, through the Governor General, dismissed the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and dissolved parliament. This asserted the power of the Crown over the elected representatives. This shows that the sovereignty of the Crown isn't just "theoretical".

Even in Westminster sovereignty emanates from the Monarch, not from the electorate. Power resides in something called the Crown-in-Parliament. That is what makes Acts of Parliament "legitimate", not any manner of public mandate. That's why government ministers are formally called Ministers of the Crown.

In other words, it is the Queen's Magic that gives government the right to govern, and it is the Queen's Magic that allows Acts to be enacted.

And all if which is going to get a lot worse under Charles III, who has already stated he intends to be a 'politcal' monarch.

 

[ayatollah]

The whole "Constitutional Monarchy" fandango is , in "normal" times of bourgeois capitalist stability, all a bit of a yawn - and apart from having royalist grovellers in the press and TV providing irritating sycophantic coverage of the trivial doings of the Royals on an all too regular basis, and apparently Prince Charles having the "custom and practice" right to be consulted on all planning legislation potentially affecting his Duchy of Cornwall... the whole Uk "Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy thing goes along reasonably smoothly.

However, come a period of social crisis, and , lets just imagine for the sake of argument, a Left government wants to do a bit of big time taxation of the rich, nationalise a few key sectors, and suddenly it would become clear that the peculiar, "custom and practice", make it up as you go along, UK "constitution" actually conceals huge reserve powrs residing in the Royal Prerogative - indeed the monarch doesn't even have to appoint a Prime Minister from the "winning" political party. The army officers and the rest of the state machine actually swear allegiance to the monarch, NOT, Parliament, and ALL of us are "Subjects" , not "Citizens". Maybe it'll never matter, but make no mistake the British Monachy is an ever-present weapon for the ruling class to rip up the democratic facade of the UK at a moments notice if their collective interests are threatened. Prince Philip always refers to the Monarchy as "The Firm" -- yep despite the pageantry and pomp its at its root "just Business" as Don Corleone was wont to remark.... gangsters all.

 

[elbows]

Fun detail looms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

A secretive power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince Charles to alter new laws is set to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.
The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it doesn't adversely affect their private interests.

 

[golightly]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Queen owns all the land in the country.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fun detail looms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

yeh. flies in the face of what we're told about the royal family having fuck all power

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How much real power does the Queen have? On the royal.gov.uk site which I'm reading it says:

but what does that MEAN? Can she stop laws? (I have no idea what approving Orders and Proclamations through Privy Council means ). HAS she ever stopped laws (or bills?) being passed by Government? Or excersised her 'right to appoint' a prime minister? (or any of the monarchs before her- how long has it been a 'Constitutional Monarchy'?).

Also, I hadn't really realised she was also the Queen of Commonwealth countries like Australia/ NZ/ Canada/ Jamaica. What significance does the Commonwealth have nowadays?

Not much in everyday terms. I think that the powers of the Queen would become evident in extremis, ie in a situation that none of us want to see take place.

 

[MikeMcc]

Complete non-story, there's a whole host of organisations and individuals that get consulted about legislation and regulation in the UK. I've been a member of the IET for years and have been invited to review and comment on a number of papers. It's a way of trying to make sure that laws and regulations actually make sense and are enforceable.

The only reason that this one is different is that there is a more formal process, to the point where it's named.

 

[Pickman's model]

Complete non-story, there's a whole host of organisations and individuals that get consulted about legislation and regulation in the UK. I've been a member of the IET for years and have been invited to review and comment on a number of papers. It's a way of trying to make sure that laws and regulations actually make sense and are enforceable.

The only reason that this one is different is that there is a more formal process, to the point where it's named.

In other words it's the same only different. You get INVITED to comment on PAPERS while they get a veto on legislation.

 

[audiotech]

Done any reviews, or make any comment on the forces of the crown MikeMcc?

 

[Fez909]

Not much in everyday terms. I think that the powers of the Queen would become evident in extremis, ie in a situation that none of us want to see take place.

Speak for yourself.

There's plenty of situations that I would like to see take place which no doubt the Queen and her lot would see as "in extremis".