Democracy and the Freedom of the press.

Because the Legal position is the ONLY one we have facts for.
Everything else is only conjecture.

I get that "whatever way it would create a problem that would have to be solved" - the question is how.
And not "conjecturally how", but absolutely specifically how.

What do you think will happen if Parliament, or the People, try to illegally circumscribe the the sovereignty of the Monarch?
I am 1000% certain the Courts will decide in favour of the party not breaking the law - they have no other choice.


All The Best

Of course it is conjecture but then when legality runs out what else do you have when you know that the end of teh legal options by no means means the end of what will happen. Once again you refer to the courts having no other choice as though legality is the only thing that will happen. When legality runs out between two countries both would be idiotic to believe that some form of illegal conflict would occur, we plan for it, we expect it, we are prepared to send people to die for it. That conflict may have now been formalised into agreements and codes but it is still beyond sovereigns and beyond courts to actually control and what the result is boils down a show of strength. In the people v the sovereign as regards UK Royal assent denial when legality breaks down who do you think will win? I know where my money goes and King Charles remembering his namesake regnal one will of course see the writing on the wall. Which is exactly why not one sovereign, of their own volition, has withheld Royal Assent from popularly made law.

We can reasonably assume the judiciary would deem its own actions legal.

I understand what it entails.
Protecting the status quo, barely tinkering at the edges, changing nothing.
Because that is what every Constitutional Crisis so far has done.

Want to put an end to 99% of Constitutional Crises?
Advocate for a formal, written, protected by law Constitution.
Anything else is just advocating for more of the same.

My whole argument rests on accurate descriptions of the legal positions as they currently stand.

So far you've used the erm "constitutional crisis" numerous times.
You have not yet shown what that would look like.
You have not yet shown the legal processes of it, merely suggesting that the solution might not be legal, but the would somehow magic itself onto the statute books.
You have not yet shown that any previous constitutional crisis has in anyway addressed the issue of Royal Assent - that is because they haven't, they have gone out of their way to protect Royal Assent.
The reason they have done so is because we are a Monarchy, not a Democracy.


All The Best

The Courts are the monarch's courts - HM super cedes everything
IIRC one of Diana's staff was in court on trial accused of stealing/selling her possessions after her death
It was  announced mid trial that the Queen had ''suddenly'' recalled asking the staff to look after said possessions , trial stopped , nothing to see , HM is supreme and can't be questioned in court

So, how are we a Democracy then?

All The Best

1) Not advocate, pointing out a consequence as regards when Constitutional Crises occur.. I am not saying anyone would side with that I am stating it as a fact of history.

2) It is not an impediment if it dare not be used.

3) I agree truth is by no means democratic but the existence of that group is not to counter Royal Assent specifically but is to bring about a Republic. Throughout this thread I have stated clearly that our democracy, with all its flaws and inconsistencies, has arisen as something better than all the attempts to start afresh and make a new democracy through a written constitution. I gave an example of the EU whereby meaningful change was kept as far away from the people as possible and what was written was largely more powerful than what the people wished.