Getting rid if the Queen?

[rory_20_uk]

If the Queen did do that, it was the darkest hour of the Monarchy for a long time.

Monarchy is supposed to block measures that abuse powers, no facilitate them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If the Queen did do that, it was the darkest hour of the Monarchy for a long time.

Monarchy is supposed to block measures that abuse powers, no facilitate them.

Actually, the monarch has very limited powers to block anything without provoking a full-blown constitutional crisis. She is there to give assent, in that power is considered still to derive from the Crown, not the people. But exercise of that power is entirely down to the people's representative Parliament and its executive, which the monarch may not gainsay.

The Queen does not use the Royal Prerogative, the Prime Minister does. He does not have to ask her for permission, but if he does, she has no choice but to give her assent.

The Queen is blameless in any use of the Royal Prerogative.

[rory_20_uk]

Thank you for that clarifcation.

As you might be able to guess, I'd be keen for power to be further spread than it currently is. The Commons can force something through on an issue that was never mentioned at an election up to 6 years previously against the wishes of the populace, the Lords and the Monarch.

If not directly the Monarch saying in extremely rare cases "No", then I feel that having the legislation placed for review by a royal Commission should be possible.

I don't feel that this should be happening every 2 months, but I feel that the option should be there.

It has been shown that the PM can effectively wield dictatorial powers when the Commons is sufficiently cowed. A undemocratic balance to guard against undemocratic abuse.

[Radier]

England is not England without the Queen. Monarchy rules!

[Banquo's Ghost]

If not directly the Monarch saying in extremely rare cases "No", then I feel that having the legislation placed for review by a royal Commission should be possible.

Theoretically this is possible, even under the settlement of 1688. However, it would need an Act of Parliament to derogate to a Royal Commission and provide the powers of review to that commission. Currently (you guessed it) only the PM can set up a Royal Commission.

In addition, this is what the House of Lords is supposed to do as the second chamber. Even stuffed with pork barrel appointees it still does on occasion.

But with the Parliament Act, all these avenues can be overruled. The constitution would need to be refined to make these minor irritations into a genuine system of checks and balances. But since the PM would be changing the constitution to reduce his powers, its not very likely to happen, methinks.

As it is, the British Prime Minister has all the powers of an unrestrained monarch. Parliament is supposed to be there to hold the executive to account, but with the party system being as it is, there are precious few checks on his almost absolute power, save a tedious election every four or five years. (And he even gets to choose when that will be!)

[rory_20_uk]

So, far from scrapping the Queen, it should be scrapping the PM!

[Banquo's Ghost]

So, far from scrapping the Queen, it should be scrapping the PM!

From an enhancing democracy perspective, damn right! Though I prefer your traditional method of dealing with untrammeled autocrats:

'Off with his head!'

(Just think of the ticket sales - clear the national debt in no time).

[rory_20_uk]

May I be the first to volounteer to wield the axe. I'm afraid I'm not that good at using it, and it'll probably be rather blunt... But hell's bells he's earnt it