Her Majesty steps in...

[Puggit]

Sky News said:

Meanwhile, the Queen has reportedly stepped into the scandal by urging the PM to get his house in order, saying she is worried the outcry could damage Parliament

Sky News Link

[Skywalker]

About time too... Ma'am.

[Six Fiend]

Time someone cracked a few heads. Go to it Ma'am!

Edited by Six Fiend on Saturday 16th May 23:03

[Puggit]

More info from the Wail

[Dunk76]

Funny, no mention on the BBC.

Pretty serious then. I think the last time this happened was the miner's strikes?

[Simpo Two]

I'd scrap Parliament and let QE2 take over. Not having to lie to get re-elected, she'd do a far better job.

[Jasandjules]

Wow, that is a fairly extreme step to take.

I am not sure Parliament can be reduced any further in the eyes of most people.

[The Hypno-Toad]

two ways viewing this;

1.) A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

2.) Or if you sign up to Bilderberg Group/New Order theories, election anounced by the end of the week.

Whatever happens, its going to be an interesting week.

Edited by The Hypno-Toad on Sunday 17th May 09:31

[JagLover]

Her role is mainly ceromonial but at times like this she step in.

This is not a party political issue every Mp, as an individual, should face the judgement of voters.

[Oilchange]

Mainly but not exclusively ceremonial. Remember she shut down Parliament in Australia in 1975.

[s2art]

Guam said:

Oilchange said:

Mainly but not exclusively ceremonial. Remember she shut down Parliament in Australia in 1975.

Interesting constitutional point, we need a constitutional expert on this one, given the state of what is going on and apparrent failure to act quickly enough and ferociously enough to restore confidence in the parliamentary process, I imagine theoretically she could pull the trigger. I reckon it would need mass demonstrations (scale of the Iraq war protests) demanding elections before she could dissolve the current house unilatteraly?

Cheers

She could do it without that if she knew something we didnt.

[s2art]

Guam said:

s2art said:

Guam said:

Oilchange said:

Mainly but not exclusively ceremonial. Remember she shut down Parliament in Australia in 1975.

Interesting constitutional point, we need a constitutional expert on this one, given the state of what is going on and apparrent failure to act quickly enough and ferociously enough to restore confidence in the parliamentary process, I imagine theoretically she could pull the trigger. I reckon it would need mass demonstrations (scale of the Iraq war protests) demanding elections before she could dissolve the current house unilatteraly?

Cheers

She could do it without that if she knew something we didnt.

Yes but on what constitutional grounds?


Cheers

Ultimately her coronation oath to the people of the UK. She is duty bound to act if the circumstances warrant it. Of course most of the time she doesnt need to use the nuclear option, just threaten to.

[Invisible man]

Much as I'd like to think otherwise, this was just a normal weekly chat, it would be odd if she didn't mention it I suppose

[s2art]

Guam said:

s2art said:

Guam said:

s2art said:

Guam said:

Oilchange said:

Mainly but not exclusively ceremonial. Remember she shut down Parliament in Australia in 1975.

Interesting constitutional point, we need a constitutional expert on this one, given the state of what is going on and apparrent failure to act quickly enough and ferociously enough to restore confidence in the parliamentary process, I imagine theoretically she could pull the trigger. I reckon it would need mass demonstrations (scale of the Iraq war protests) demanding elections before she could dissolve the current house unilatteraly?

Cheers

She could do it without that if she knew something we didnt.

Yes but on what constitutional grounds?


Cheers

Ultimately her coronation oath to the people of the UK. She is duty bound to act if the circumstances warrant it. Of course most of the time she doesnt need to use the nuclear option, just threaten to.

I get that but she (like everyone else in our system would have to justify the use of such powers), The question still stands at what point and on what cnstitutional grounds can her Maj as head of state dissolve parliament WITHOUT the sanction of the current Government to do so. As I understand it the dissolution of Parliament is basically a sanctioned power by and on behalf of Parliament rather than a singular act that can be undertaken by her Maj these days. I for one would dearly love her to do it but constitutionally can she?

Yes, contitutionally she can dissolve parliament and force a general election. Many powers are conventionally dealt with ny parliament but ultimately derive from the monarch. The buck stops with her.

Full list of those powers

Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;

The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;

Royal assent to bills;

The appointment and regulation of the civil service;

The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;

Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;

Appointment of Queen's Counsel;

Issue and withdrawal of passports;

Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)

Granting honours;

Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;

Declaration of war;

Deployment of armed forces overseas;

Recognition of foreign states;

Accreditation and reception of diplomats.




Also read this;

http://www.republic.org.uk/britishconstitution/ind...

Edited by s2art on Sunday 17th May 12:45

[Martial Arts Man]

As a royalist (albeit mostly due to the lack of a viable HOS alternative), the prospect of the Queen having anything to do with the fall of a gov't worries me.

Remember; the popularity of a monarch ebbs and flows like any other public figure.

Intervening to dismiss a Labour PM is just too risky given the possibility of another Labour PM at some point in the future.

If the lefties are still blaming, quite vocally, Mrs. Thatcher for their present day ills, one can be fairly confident that the Royals would be at the mercy of future Labour vengeance.

All they would need is the right timing and we could easily find ourselves living in a Republic. Who knows how popular Charles will be as King?


All in all, the Queen is best to sit by and let the gov't destroy itself; no need for her to become an apoligist's scapegoat.

[BiggusLaddus]

Simpo Two said:

I'd scrap Parliament and let QE2 take over. Not having to lie to get re-elected, she'd do a far better job.

The faith that I would have in her is more than balanced by the lack of it that I would have in her successors.

[tubbystu]

Simpo Two said:

I'd scrap Parliament and let QE2 take over. Not having to lie to get re-elected, she'd do a far better job.

And we could have the Duke of Edinburgh as Speaker

[s2art]

tubbystu said:

Simpo Two said:

I'd scrap Parliament and let QE2 take over. Not having to lie to get re-elected, she'd do a far better job.

And we could have the Duke of Edinburgh as Speaker

Naah, wasted there. Foreign minister would be more entertaining.

[Northern Munkee]

Martial Arts Man said:

As a royalist (albeit mostly due to the lack of a viable HOS alternative), the prospect of the Queen having anything to do with the fall of a gov't worries me.

Remember; the popularity of a monarch ebbs and flows like any other public figure.

Intervening to dismiss a Labour PM is just too risky given the possibility of another Labour PM at some point in the future.

If the lefties are still blaming, quite vocally, Mrs. Thatcher for their present day ills, one can be fairly confident that the Royals would be at the mercy of future Labour vengeance.

All they would need is the right timing and we could easily find ourselves living in a Republic. Who knows how popular Charles will be as King?


All in all, the Queen is best to sit by and let the gov't destroy itself; no need for her to become an apoligist's scapegoat.

+1, although while I'm not a royalist, I'd hate MPs abuse of expenses, resulting in undermining another institution, and precipitate a constitutional crisis, which may send us down careering down the republican route, with a parliament so discredited, not that I have anything fundamentally wrong with a republic, but it doesn't offer anything greatly better than a monarchy, and as an institution for all its faults is for the most apolitical and offers some continuity.

Meddling in politics would be the worst thing QE2 could do. I'd say lets see what happens at the next referendum the local/euro elections, its beginning to look possible that a really bad result may just set the cogs going on percipitating a general election. Just maybe. And QE2 wouldn't dissolve herself out of existence.

[AndrewW-G]

Guam said:

s2art said:

tubbystu said:

Simpo Two said:

I'd scrap Parliament and let QE2 take over. Not having to lie to get re-elected, she'd do a far better job.

And we could have the Duke of Edinburgh as Speaker

Naah, wasted there. Foreign minister would be more entertaining.

Would be far far more diplomatic than the the pratt we're stuck with at the moment, at least the D of E has this country's interests at heart