|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 14:05:45 GMT
Well, here's the kicker. That is seemingly so difficult to grasp that I am just about the only person here who has done so. We can't be both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Constitutional Democracy can we? They are mutually exclusive! So I was correct: we are NOT a Democracy. All The Best Just a word of advice, stop making yourself look sillier and sillier.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Why is this too hard for some of you to grasp? Parliament could pass a thousand Acts, all complying with the Will Of The People, and the Monarch can still REFUSE to sign them into Law - and there is not a single short of insurrection that we could do about it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 6, 2024 14:11:54 GMT
Just a word of advice, stop making yourself look sillier and sillier.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Why is this too hard for some of you to grasp? Parliament could pass a thousand Acts, all complying with the Will Of The People, and the Monarch can still REFUSE to sign them into Law - and there is not a single short of insurrection that we could do about it. All The Best Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 17:05:16 GMT
But ONLY the Monarch can sign that legislation into Law. Why is this too hard for some of you to grasp? Parliament could pass a thousand Acts, all complying with the Will Of The People, and the Monarch can still REFUSE to sign them into Law - and there is not a single short of insurrection that we could do about it. All The Best Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 6, 2024 17:22:05 GMT
Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning.  |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 6, 2024 19:16:07 GMT
If the Monarch refuses to grant Royal Assent and the monarch fails to act within six months of the bill being presented to him, it becomes law without his signature.
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; as stated earlier the last such occasion was in 1707, Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 19:23:37 GMT
If the Monarch refuses to grant Royal Assent and the monarch fails to act within six months of the bill being presented to him, it becomes law without his signature. 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; as stated earlier the last such occasion was in 1707, Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality. no it didnt. It last happened in the uk in 1973 . read my earlier post. Not true as I understand it. If the monarch fails to act on a bill being presented , then it becomes law without the monarchs signature , but not if the monarch voices his official refusal. A good book on the subject if the former liberal democrat mp Norman bakers book * and what do you do* full of interesting facts about the monarchy and its apparent invisible and non binding power. Baker should know what he is talking about. He spent years researching the archives , and was also a former privy councillor to lizzie , and government minister. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 19:25:50 GMT
Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best aye . naw. you won't convince any of our monarchist friends the monarchy is anything other than a lovable cherished institution with zero power . Mind the auld saying , its easier to fool people , than convince them they have been fooled. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2024 19:40:59 GMT
Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best I'll try an answer. Yes. Don't know but assume there is not. Follow up question. What do you think the consequence of that refusal would be if it was critically important piece of legislation? The process does not end at the refusal point, the legal options may have run out but we then move into Constitutional Crisis areas which would have to be resolved by hook or by crook. WE have had many Constitutional Crises over the years, in 1911 the Budget was vetoed by the Lords and resulted in a Constitutional Crisis that resulted in the Parliament Act and tellingly the government went to the country to gain a mandate. Crises result in change, a Monarch would be a very foolish Monarch indeed if he tried it on without there already being some form of Constitutional Crisis in the offing. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 20:07:28 GMT
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning. Well, as the questions proved too difficult to for you let's try again: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? Both only require Yes or No answers in the first instance. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 20:31:15 GMT
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best I'll try an answer. Yes. Don't know but assume there is not. Follow up question. What do you think the consequence of that refusal would be if it was critically important piece of legislation? The process does not end at the refusal point, the legal options may have run out but we then move into Constitutional Crisis areas which would have to be resolved by hook or by crook. WE have had many Constitutional Crises over the years, in 1911 the Budget was vetoed by the Lords and resulted in a Constitutional Crisis that resulted in the Parliament Act and tellingly the government went to the country to gain a mandate. Crises result in change, a Monarch would be a very foolish Monarch indeed if he tried it on without there already being some form of Constitutional Crisis in the offing. Ok, thanks for the straight answers. If the Monarch can refuse to grant Royal Assent and there is nothing legal we can do about that, is it the People, Parliament or the Monarch that are truly sovereign? The only logical answer is the Monarch Now I'll answer your question: There is no obvious outcome, nor one that is guaranteed any success. Because there is no clearly defined legal process for dealing with such a case. You say we've had crises in the past, and that crises lead to change; but they don't really, do they? If they did there would already be a clearly defined legal process for dealing with a Monarch who refuses to grant Royal Assent. There is no such process; because, neither the people, nor parliament, nor even the law are sovereign - the Monarch is. No Constitutional Crisis so far has posed any threat at all to the ultimate sovereignty of the Monarch. Even the example you cited, the Parliament Act 1911, was NOT about curtailing the power of the Monarch, but about the distribution of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords - at no time was any attempt made to make it possible to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 theoretically undermined the prerogative of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament on a whim - and it was on a whim, there was no legal way to prevent a Monarch dissolving Parliament. But then just to prove that the system in this country serves the interests of the Monarch and NOT the interests of the People the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. Theoretically we could go for revolution / insurrection; but as all the Emergency Services and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch, and not to Parliament or the People, that would be very short lived and almost certain to fail. So, were the Monarch to refuse to grant Royal Assent what would happen? Nothing much at all, because history has demonstrated that time and again. Constitutional Crises have thus far posed no threat at all to the absolute sovereignty of the Monarch. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 6, 2024 20:36:41 GMT
Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options: grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. delay the bill's assent through the use of reserve powers, thereby invoking a veto. refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill to settle the militia in Scotland, and the last time the monarch made an in-person appearance to provide assent was in 1854.
The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best And given that you live in a world of technicalities where they don't come to fruition, you make the ludicrous claim that the UK isn't a democracy. Isn't that right? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 6, 2024 21:13:19 GMT
Just a word of advice, stop making yourself look sillier and sillier.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Why is this too hard for some of you to grasp? Parliament could pass a thousand Acts, all complying with the Will Of The People, and the Monarch can still REFUSE to sign them into Law - and there is not a single short of insurrection that we could do about it. All The Best The last time that happened was 1708 - do you really think it is a possibility nowdays? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2024 22:06:15 GMT
I'll try an answer. Yes. Don't know but assume there is not. Follow up question. What do you think the consequence of that refusal would be if it was critically important piece of legislation? The process does not end at the refusal point, the legal options may have run out but we then move into Constitutional Crisis areas which would have to be resolved by hook or by crook. WE have had many Constitutional Crises over the years, in 1911 the Budget was vetoed by the Lords and resulted in a Constitutional Crisis that resulted in the Parliament Act and tellingly the government went to the country to gain a mandate. Crises result in change, a Monarch would be a very foolish Monarch indeed if he tried it on without there already being some form of Constitutional Crisis in the offing. Ok, thanks for the straight answers. If the Monarch can refuse to grant Royal Assent and there is nothing legal we can do about that, is it the People, Parliament or the Monarch that are truly sovereign? The only logical answer is the Monarch Now I'll answer your question: There is no obvious outcome, nor one that is guaranteed any success. Because there is no clearly defined legal process for dealing with such a case. You say we've had crises in the past, and that crises lead to change; but they don't really, do they? If they did there would already be a clearly defined legal process for dealing with a Monarch who refuses to grant Royal Assent. There is no such process; because, neither the people, nor parliament, nor even the law are sovereign - the Monarch is. No Constitutional Crisis so far has posed any threat at all to the ultimate sovereignty of the Monarch. Even the example you cited, the Parliament Act 1911, was NOT about curtailing the power of the Monarch, but about the distribution of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords - at no time was any attempt made to make it possible to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 theoretically undermined the prerogative of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament on a whim - and it was on a whim, there was no legal way to prevent a Monarch dissolving Parliament. But then just to prove that the system in this country serves the interests of the Monarch and NOT the interests of the People the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. Theoretically we could go for revolution / insurrection; but as all the Emergency Services and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch, and not to Parliament or the People, that would be very short lived and almost certain to fail. So, were the Monarch to refuse to grant Royal Assent what would happen? Nothing much at all, because history has demonstrated that time and again. Constitutional Crises have thus far posed no threat at all to the absolute sovereignty of the Monarch. All The Best My point about Constitutional crises and their resolution was that IF the Monarch so decided to withhold assent then that would initiate a Constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved. Once a legal dead end is reached then the only way to progress is by new methods as happened in 1911. That is the way Constitutions arise if they are not drawn up and if they are drawn up and such an impasse is reached then amendments are made. IF it happens we all do not just sit on our hands. Once again it would be idiotic of a Monarch to behave in such a way given our Constitution and his position in it. The fact it has not happened in the way you define indicates that it is not a problem in our democracy nor on the sovereignty of the people who win by either legal or new legal methods. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 0:00:36 GMT
But ONLY the Monarch can sign that legislation into Law. Why is this too hard for some of you to grasp? Parliament could pass a thousand Acts, all complying with the Will Of The People, and the Monarch can still REFUSE to sign them into Law - and there is not a single short of insurrection that we could do about it. All The Best The last time that happened was 1708 - do you really think it is a possibility nowdays? Of course it is still possible, because there are no legal procedures in place to prevent it being a possibility. The real question is how probable is it. I'd suggest that any probability greater than zero is too much of a risk when what is at stake is Democracy itself. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 0:07:52 GMT
Ok, thanks for the straight answers. If the Monarch can refuse to grant Royal Assent and there is nothing legal we can do about that, is it the People, Parliament or the Monarch that are truly sovereign? The only logical answer is the Monarch Now I'll answer your question: There is no obvious outcome, nor one that is guaranteed any success. Because there is no clearly defined legal process for dealing with such a case. You say we've had crises in the past, and that crises lead to change; but they don't really, do they? If they did there would already be a clearly defined legal process for dealing with a Monarch who refuses to grant Royal Assent. There is no such process; because, neither the people, nor parliament, nor even the law are sovereign - the Monarch is. No Constitutional Crisis so far has posed any threat at all to the ultimate sovereignty of the Monarch. Even the example you cited, the Parliament Act 1911, was NOT about curtailing the power of the Monarch, but about the distribution of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords - at no time was any attempt made to make it possible to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 theoretically undermined the prerogative of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament on a whim - and it was on a whim, there was no legal way to prevent a Monarch dissolving Parliament. But then just to prove that the system in this country serves the interests of the Monarch and NOT the interests of the People the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. Theoretically we could go for revolution / insurrection; but as all the Emergency Services and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch, and not to Parliament or the People, that would be very short lived and almost certain to fail. So, were the Monarch to refuse to grant Royal Assent what would happen? Nothing much at all, because history has demonstrated that time and again. Constitutional Crises have thus far posed no threat at all to the absolute sovereignty of the Monarch. All The Best Once a legal dead end is reached then the only way to progress is by new methods as happened in 1911. That is the way Constitutions arise if they are not drawn up and if they are drawn up and such an impasse is reached then amendments are made. IF it happens we all do not just sit on our hands. Once again it would be idiotic of a Monarch to behave in such a way given our Constitution and his position in it. The fact it has not happened in the way you define indicates that it is not a problem in our democracy nor on the sovereignty of the people who win by either legal or new legal methods. I got your point. My point, the more pertinent point, is have any of those past Constitutional Crises been resolved in such a way as to prevent further Constitutional Crises on the same issue. The answer is they have not. These, alleged, Constitutional Crises in fact preserved the status quo - and that is because the mechanisms of state's primary function is to preserve the status quo - that we are a Monarchy and NOT a Democracy. All The Best |
|
