Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boogieman

I agree. She had an opportunity to show leadership in vetoing it, or whatever the analogous term is in GB. I was an admirer of hers—until today.


50 posted on 07/17/2013 10:08:33 AM PDT by martha43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: martha43
I agree. She had an opportunity to show leadership in vetoing it, or whatever the analogous term is in GB.

Sorry. She doesn't have a veto. The monarchy is ceremonial; the crown ceded its executive power to Parliament ages ago. Passing laws is Parliament's prerogative. The Queen's duty is to formally ratify it.

In theory, the Queen (and her viceroys, the various Governors-General of the Commonwealth countries like Canada) have rather broad reserve powers that they can exercise in times of emergency or constitutional crisis. This includes the ability to refuse to give royal assent. In practice, these powers are almost never exercised, and when they are, it's usually very controversial.

57 posted on 07/17/2013 1:01:29 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson