Oldjohnw wrote: ↑16 Sep 2021, 2:31pm..............................
A real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
..........................'republicans' have been 'Trumped' on - give me our Queen any day!
No doubt we all have our own definition of the word trump - all of them possibly apt in his case.
The Queen has encountered much sadness in her life - as we've all seen - recently there's the shadow over Prince Andrew's life.
The kind of things that Prince Andrew is accused of..........would they be trumpetted as a badge of honour in some quarters?
Last edited by JohnW on 17 Sep 2021, 1:16pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is usually no point whatsoever, as shown when emergency executive powers were approved by Parliament, subject to a review after three weeks and our representatives then sloped off for four weeks. On the occasion we are discussing, IMO prorogation was a ploy, since ruled unlawful, which pushed the prime minister into a general election he perhaps should have called in the first place
For those in favour of change, I can see that the Grand Fenwick nature of our system tends to legitimate what goes on, but that's hardly the fault of the monarch.
More reports about Andrew trying to deny anything has been "served" and I increasingly feel he is being daft. Court papers are going to be served at some point and his continual worming is just keeping the issue in the press. And the more reports the more it's in the public eye and the greater the repetitional damage.
He is going to get served (court cases don't disappear because the defendant hides behind Police and security). So damage from the outcome will be the same if he manages to delay it a few weeks or not but those few weeks delay are creating lots of press reports about him about and underage sex accusations, etc.
The bit missing from the headline is that this is the American Judge Lewis Kaplan's ruling, which in practical terms is the only one that counts. He has the say so on whether the case goes ahead and it's hard to see an avenue of appeal in the US without acknowledging knowledge of the proceedings.
She can vet before parliament approves a bill and negotiate changes (secretly which is obviously wrong) but she can't refuse to sign or make changes once a bill has been voted through. She cannot go against parliament.
There are many who lobby ministers to change bills pre votes but not as of right as with HMQ.
And before anyone says I support her in this I don't: I am merely stating what is the case. I also think that concealing Philip’s will is appalling.
Oldjohnw wrote: ↑17 Sep 2021, 3:52pm
She can vet before parliament approves a bill and negotiate changes (secretly which is obviously wrong) but she can't refuse to sign or make changes once a bill has been voted through. She cannot go against parliament.
There are many who lobby ministers to change bills pre votes but not as of right as with HMQ.
And before anyone says I support her in this I don't: I am merely stating what is the case. I also think that concealing Philip’s will is appalling.
But she can refuse to sign - however with the ability to make changes before parliament approves she doesn't need to.
From the official UK Parliament website
"Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1707, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Oldjohnw wrote: ↑17 Sep 2021, 3:52pm
She can vet before parliament approves a bill and negotiate changes (secretly which is obviously wrong) but she can't refuse to sign or make changes once a bill has been voted through. She cannot go against parliament.
There are many who lobby ministers to change bills pre votes but not as of right as with HMQ.
And before anyone says I support her in this I don't: I am merely stating what is the case. I also think that concealing Philip’s will is appalling.
Why is negotiating secretly wrong?
How much of the actual parliamentary process do you think is made public?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Oldjohnw wrote: ↑17 Sep 2021, 3:52pm
She can vet before parliament approves a bill and negotiate changes (secretly which is obviously wrong) but she can't refuse to sign or make changes once a bill has been voted through. She cannot go against parliament.
There are many who lobby ministers to change bills pre votes but not as of right as with HMQ.
And before anyone says I support her in this I don't: I am merely stating what is the case. I also think that concealing Philip’s will is appalling.
Why is negotiating secretly wrong?
How much of the actual parliamentary process do you think is made public?
The negotiations can be secret. But the fact of them and the actual consequences should be transparent. As with all lobbying.
Royal Assent can be refused in theory but it hasn’t happened since 1707. Because we don’t have a written constitution these things are practice and tradition.
I guess that the very people who say the royal family should keep out of politics also want the queen to get involved in politics! Which is what refusing to sign an act from a legitimately elected parliament would be in the absence of a formal constitution.
