Posted on 05/07/2015 1:27:42 PM PDT by NRx
Considering what happen in Australia I believe during the 1970s when the Royal-Governor intervened how that fed republican feeling I doubt the Queen given she is pretty sharp will repeat that mistake.
More importantly.. do we care? We’ve got enought to worry about here.
There’s always a clear winner, some parties might need to rejigger their alliances, but there will be a clear winner.
Good summary.
When I saw the headline I was thinking I’d have to leap into the discussion to explain British Constitutional law and convention. I’ve had to do it before. But you’ve made it clear yourself.
I can see the Queen having to get a little bit more involved than normal in certain scenarios, perhaps to the extent of having to remind certain leaders that they are obliged to at least try to form a coalition before saying they can not do so, but none of the major leaders would force a situation where she had to do more than that. They’d avoid it at all costs.
The first Queen Elizabeth was hands on and did a pretty good job, actually.
There has been multiple elections during the same year in modern history: 1886 and 1974.
Give it to Charles.
“More importantly.. do we care?”
We had better. Britain is America’s closest and most reliable ally. The election could have serious effects on that relationship. If Labour forms a government in coalition with the SNP the price demanded by the Scottish nationalists is likely going to be British unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Constitutionally, she has the power. It is highly doubtful, given today’s political climate, that she would take such a drastic step.
It wasn't a mistake. It was the system working exactly as it was meant to work. The only people with their knickers in a twist about it in Australia were the radical leftists who didn't like their totalitarian Prime Minister being sacked for trying to break the law and ignore the constitution. And they were republicans to begin with. Because the left tends to dominate academia, they've managed to spread this idea that the Dismissal in 1975 was some type of grave injustice - it wasn't. It was the Governor General doing what he was supposed to do to deal with a government that was trying to ignore the law, and the Constitution. And the Queen would do exactly the same thing in the UK if needed. The difference is no British Prime Minister is likely to be as stupid as Gough Whitlam was - he managed to convince himself that the Governor General could not act without his permission despite very clear information that he could.
I think our problems here are far more important and the current administration has done a ton of damage to all of our allies. I’d rather have a well repescted and much feared leader here. Allies will rally around that kind of leader and if they don’t.. they will.
So Whitlam said, “So what are you going to do about it?”
And then found out.
Unless she had no choice. The reserve powers do exist to deal with an actual breakdown of government. This is very unlikely to happen, largely because the powers exist. No government or opposition is likely to force the Queen to intervene.
After the last election, when Gordon Brown finally gave up on trying to hold onto government with a coalition, he phoned Nick Clegg to tell him the news. He said, according to news reports at the time:
"Nick, Nick. I can't hold on any longer. Nick. I've got to go to the palace. The country expects me to do that. I have to go. The Queen expects me to go. I can't hold on any longer."
The Queen expects me to go. That was the bottom line. He would not force her to intervene - no modern Prime Minister is ever likely to - but the fact that she can, is something that they have to consider, and take account of.
“We had better. Britain is America’s closest and most reliable ally.”
How? They contribute a small force to most military operations, yes. And they are an NSA asset. We spy on their people, they spy on ours domestically. Then we swap info,,, neat trick.
But tell me a time they ever put our interests ahead of their own? I can make a case that Australia, Japan, and a few others are more reliable allies.
The worst part of the UK is that it is now lead by moslems and people who saw Orwell as a blueprint. At best now,,, we should be suspiciously friendly.
A royal, much like a religious leader, should NEVER have the ability to intervene of interfere with the actual civil government.
Parades and tourism, fine,,, but no unelected person should ever have actual power. The same goes for first ladies, I hate that they always have a “cause” and seem to wield actual power.
“The reserve powers do exist to deal with an actual breakdown of government. This is very unlikely to happen, largely because the powers exist. No government or opposition is likely to force the Queen to intervene.”
Basically, as long as the elected government behaves in a manner some “royal” approves of, its ok? Otherwise, they can intervene?
That’s a shocking position to articulate in this day and age.
OH!
Their “Queen”....
You’re entitled to that opinion. But the reason the Queen does have these powers is to intervene in an emergency. They are a fundamental break on the idea that a government can violate constitutional law.
The powers exist only to be used to resolve crisis situations - and in the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth, that is how it has worked in practice. It’s made the countries with this system of government among the most politically stable in the world.
If the Monarch was going around abusing these powers, these nations would rapidly become Republics - and that’s the control the other way around. It creates a real balance of powers.
If she does I wonder if we can get that British Navy to take our POTUS for a little ride...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.