Sorry but no, that is completely wrong. Those powers are exercised solely and exclusively on the advice of the government. The monarch is constitutionally obliged to follow that advice, and has been for centuries. The Queen does not have, and has never had, personal powers or discretion over these matters. She is a figurehead and a symbol, like I said. This is clear and well-established - it is not a matter of controversy. If we like, we can amuse ourselves by hypothesising some future monarch going insane and trying to issue commands as if he lived in the 17th century. King Charles III, anybody?
I read what you gave me to read, and it says by convention she should sign off new laws. She doesn't HAVE to, it's just unlikely that she will not. I am not pushing for anything other than clarity here. The link you provided did not say anywhere that she must sign off new laws. It also says that they tried to take away the power to deploy the army abroad but it was rejected. So please correct my previous statement that she can if she so chooses refuse to allow a law to become law, however unlikely that it may be. And that as the head of the armed services with the power to deploy them overseas and to order them at home how I am wrong in thinking that she has the power of where to send the armed forces, and that as such my allegiance to the Queen means that I represent the electorate. Again, you made me look stupid by telling me I was wrong in the first instance and then gave me a link telling me I was right. So please explain to me. I would rather leave this thread knowing what is right and what is wrong but I remain confused.
No. In the modern world, when a bill has completed its passage through parliament, the "Royal Assent" which turns it into an Act is an automatic process operated by officials of parliament. The Queen does not have a chance to ponder whether to assent or not. It is a pure formality, and one of the "dignified" parts of the constitution.
From Wikipedia again.... Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Since the 19th century, by convention, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet—who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision—has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.
Please accept my apologies, Tom. I should have been clearer, and I did not mean to be disrespectful. I also did not mean to make you look stupid, just to inform you. We all know different things and this is an area I happen to know about; there are things you know far more about than I do. The starting point here is that the British Constitution is not written down in a short, well-ordered document like the constitutions of most other countries. Our constitution is a rather confused mass of Acts of parliament, rules of procedure, court judgments, Orders in Council, charters, and traditions which have accumulated over 800 years. When an old practice has become obsolete and is superseded, we rarely abolish it outright like other countries do. Instead, the old tradition is continued as a picturesque ceremony, in the "dignified" part of the system, but no longer having any real force or effect on the "efficient" part which is the part which actually does the work. This can be confusing. The use of the Queen on coins, in oaths of allegiance, in honours, etc is nominal and traditional, not to be taken literally. I suspect that the point you mention is about the "Royal Prerogative", which is a matter of some political debate but does not mean what you may think it means. Sometimes the Prime Minister and the government takes (or tries to take) some action without the authority of parliament, by claiming to exercise the Royal Prerogative. This has nothing whatever to do with the Queen exercising any power personally. The debate is about whether it is acceptable or appropriate for the government to act without the authority of parliament, or whether obtaining parliamentary approval first is essential. Nowadays the Royal Prerogative is employed less and less, and is obsolete in most contexts. As regards deploying the armed forces, there is a real problem. Parliamentary approval before committing forces to war is highly desirable, but sometimes forces would need to act at very short notice or in great secrecy. Holding a parliamentary debate first might ruin the whole deployment. So the Royal Prerogative might still be useful in this context (nothing to do with the Queen, remember) but the government would certainly have to justify afterwards having acted in such a high-handed way. I hope this provides some useful information. Feel free to ask, if you want more, or PM me.
As someone who works in an engineering / scientific environment I find this law stuff fascinating. There is always wriggle room and plenty of opportunity for different opinions to argue over, no wonder lawyers are generally rich.
The view set out in this Wiki entry (thanks for quoting it ) is itself virtually obsolete by now. For the Queen to purport to exercise the Royal Prerogative in any area against the advice of the Prime Minister is about as likely as the Queen shooting the Prime Minister. Constitutional scholars can amuse themselves by trying to hypothesise extraordinary, far-fetched circumstances. Try this one: a nuclear bomb goes off in London, killing the entire government and parliament, but the Queen is elsewhere and survives. The Queen then exercises the Royal Prerogative, without advice, to appoint new ones.
more often than not whether you committed the offence is irrelevant it will be the legal procedure that the bastid lawyers will go for obviously with their wonderful capacity of hindsight a year after the event ruling the roost along with a touch of technicality………obviously for their £2000 a day plus expenses coming from the legal aid system…. Remember its only a game show!!
An ex plod friend of mine reported a driver for doing 115mph in a Mercedes sports car on the M6 measured with a hand held device. It went to court and the driver didn't turn up but his lawyer did, a lawyer who has defended a number of high profile celebs. He got the case thrown out because contrary to some Home Office guidelines the handheld device didn't have the recommended number of calibration points between 30 and 80mph even though the calibration points that were there were not in question. That he was doing well over the limit was irrelevant. I think this justifies andyb's post, irrespective of your view on breaking the speed limit on the motorway, only in this case I don't suppose it was funded by legal aid.
In criminal cases, the question at issue is whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offence charged. To interpret that as meaning "whether you committed the offence is irrelevant" is to torture both the logic and the language. Certainly if the prosecution evidence is lacking, or ambiguous, or inconsistent then the defence may succeed. So what? Is anyone suggesting defendants should be convicted and punished even without good enough evidence against them?
I really do take your point Pete but I can't help thinking that if my lawyer is better than your lawyer (or the prosecution lawyer in a criminal case) the chances are significantly improved that I will win.
Its not about better or worse its about technicalities. If there is evidence of a smoking gun in my hand, but plod reads my rights the wrong way, so inadmissible then I'm off scot free or so it seems...
Well, clearly there is no justice (this is not a new realisation…). For the simple reason that if you can afford the best lawyers, you will have a better chance of not being proven guilty, or having a reduced sentence. Similarly, if you can afford the best accountants, you will pay less tex. The tax system is one thing, but it seems that the justice system is particularly cancerous. Your guilt shouldn't be a question of money, but it quite clearly is. As in many areas of life, what you think are points of principle end up just being moves in a game. The game is understood by the professionals who play it. The hapless one-time contestants stand very little chance.
but to reverse the technicality issue on Plod..the Police will wriggle and squirm and try to play every card possible to secure a conviction, particularly if the evidence is a little thin.
having given evidence at crown coroners and magistrates court on numerous occasions it is …..only a game show! couple of good moves, once along with my other half off duty, having battled with and then arrested a drink driver who had crashed and injured another person before trying to run off we ended up in court months later. A well to do chap who had hired the notorious best to defend him. this defence was trying to push me into confusion where i had stated that i made my notes as soon as practicable i.e. when i went home, he was trying to confuse the issue in that i hadn't made them as soon as practicable as i had stated i had taken the WPC home…………this was his attempt to cloud the procedure………………..but the fact that he missed was her home was my home………..quite funny as the jury judge and the court all laughed at him when i relieved his misery explaining we lived together…... another case that took years to get to court re a pursuit and crash was with a prominent Judge, where a defence barrister was trying to tie me down to copying the same words as two other officers in the case..i explained it was cop jargon and you could go across the road to the station there to find any cop who would also use the same terminology……at this point the judge says to the defence barrister sit down and that it is common law…..( the terminology explained) to which i repeated that it was common law to the jury…... It is only a game show! where the actors dress up with make up and wigs…...
