If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The Right of the Crown
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
BBC News Online; war against Iraq
I don't wish to be drawn in to the merits of declaring war on Iraq or not - there are other posts for that. This will, hopefully, discuss something highlighted in this article, namely;
Is it constitutional for the monarch to reject the advice of the Cabinet? Can Her Majesty defy the PM? If Mr. Blair proposed war, could Her Majesty turn round and say "No"?
And if so; where would that leave us? Is it a constitutional crisis?
Do you think that the Queen would defy the Cabinet?
I don't wish to be drawn in to the merits of declaring war on Iraq or not - there are other posts for that. This will, hopefully, discuss something highlighted in this article, namely;
Under Britain's rather complicated constitution, only the Crown - acting on the advice of the Prime Minister AND the Cabinet - can declare war.
Source; BBC News Online, see URL above
Is it constitutional for the monarch to reject the advice of the Cabinet? Can Her Majesty defy the PM? If Mr. Blair proposed war, could Her Majesty turn round and say "No"?
And if so; where would that leave us? Is it a constitutional crisis?
Do you think that the Queen would defy the Cabinet?
0
Comments
Its just the figurehead thing again, mixed in with some sense of ceremony. Parliament makes the decisions, the queen puts her fancy stamp of approval on them and they happen.
In any event, Blair will do as he's told by Bush. They don't seem to give a shit about seeking UN approval anyway, so I don't think he would stop from joining a war either if the Queen didn't give her consent.
In essence he only does so on the Queen's behalf, as a result of the Royal Prerogatives. These are executive governmental powers that had been handed from the monarch to the PM over the past few centuries.
I mean, she can't see much future after she's gone, so she may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Maybe it could come down to a UFC type ring fight between her and blair... And you all know you'd be rooting for the monarchy then.
It would bring down the monarchy if they openly opposed something which the elected Govt wanted to do. Unless, of course, the vast majority of the population didn't support them.
Even that is no certainty, afterall she gave assent to the Poll Tax, didn't she
It is all getting rather foul since the loss of the Empire! How about a good civil war? There has not been a good one in ages! Overdue wouldn't you say? Royalists versus Parliamentarians!
I side with the Crown. I am ever so sentimental. Disarm and crush the rabble of peasants! God save the Queen!
Off with their heads if they disagree!
She has the power to refuse to sign anything that is given for her approval, BUT she is obliged to sign. If the government gave her a piece of paper with a law saying that the monarchy should be abolished, then she's obliged to sign it.
[sorry about my lack of eloquency this morning, I can't seem to get my brain into action]
Yes, all new laws must be given royal assent, but the Queen does not even sign them herself. The Lord Chancellor, the Queen's Representative in the House of Lords, signs them on her behalf; on most issues she is not even consulted.
The Prime Minister does meet with the Queen weekly, and it is likely that they would discuss military action against Iraq at one of these meetings. However, even if the Queen gave firm objections, it would only be one of the many factors Blair considered. He's far more interested in keeping Bush happy than he is the Queen.
The other question largely ignored by this thread is why would the Queen want to stop involvement? Have I missed something? Has she become a peace-loving hippy with the interests of Iraqi children close to her heart? I don't think so.
This Queen has probably never intervened in military affairs directly; several monarchs directly before her played no major role either. I find it highly unlikely that she will start now, in this issue over Iraq.
Interestingly, on a little more research I have found that the last monarch to reject a Bill was Queen Anne in 1707, whilst the last time a Monarch actually signed a Bill themself was Queen Victoria in 1854.
Didn't know about the queen vic one!
Except that parliament may not be given the opportunity to vote on military action in iraq. Blair may just go ahead and follow Bush's lead anyway. And even if parliament voted to attack, there is no certainty that the British people they represent would agree with this decision. If the UK was a genuine democracy, there'd be a referendum on the issue.
We permanently be in the polling booths then, if the population had to be consulted on every major decision :rolleyes:
The concept of an elected parliament is that we ask our MP to make these decisions on our behalf.
The UK is a representative democracy.
Only in a direct democracy (which cannot really be feasible with large populations) would consistent referenda take place.
So you're saying that you voted for your MP with full knowledge of where they would stand if a possible conflict with Iraq arose? Or do you simply have faith that they'll do the "right thing" ? Iraq was not a significant issue at the last election. It is now. The government needs a new mandate from the people before they undertake this excercise "on our behalf". Either they can call a general election, or - and this makes much more sense - they can hold a single issue referendum.
I'm not advocating holding one of these on every issue, but I reckon that the possibility of a nuclear war is a big enough reason to warrant us actually having a say on what this country is going to do. Both sides put forward their case, the people vote. It's a simple enough excercise - and it puts the power back with the people, where it belongs.
No, I didn't actually vote ofr the person who is now my MP, but I do believe that he will act within his conscience, and would rush headlong into a immoral war.
Yes it was, we just voted on other things. Iraq has been important for over ten years now.
No it doesn't, that is just something which the anti-war protesters want, because they believe they could win the "fight".
We elected the Govt for five years, to deal with whatever came up in that five years.
We didn't vote for them to dodge the really tough decisions when they came.
So, if we were directly attacked, you would want a referendum before we reacted?
She has the armed forces and the police on her side (all officers, soldiers take oathes of loyalty to the Queen, and most people in these instituions are Royalists anyway) and a majority of the population who think a war would be a bad idea. Blair has John Prescott. Who's your money on....?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/82559.stm