No, it's got no constitutional implications whatsoever. Constitutional implications relate to the structure of the government - in 1914, the Bill that George V considered refusing Royal Assent to, was one giving 'Home Rule' to Ireland. To be a constitutional issue, a bill has to relate to how the Parliament is structured, or how the courts are structured, how long a government can stay in office without an election, who controls the budget, etc.
While HM is a patriot, I agree, and her sense of duty is admirable, her acquiescence to abnormal social developments isn’t what her country and society in the UK need.
Maybe not, but she has no power to intervene. No right to intervene.
Her only rights in this case are ones she may have exercised - the way it is normally expressed that she has the right to be kept informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn her Prime Minister in private of her concerns - and only in private. They have a weekly meeting which is totally private, where if she felt these laws were damaging to Britain, she would have told him that (she would have 'warned'). But if he decides to proceed, she must not make any public intervention. That is the way it works. The Monarch is apolitical, and cannot get involved in political controversies.
One of the interesting “fads” it seems the Royal Family have embraced is that of giving Islamists a pass when it comes to holding hostage British society. Even after the horrific beheading of a serving British soldier and Islamic protests in the small town that honors the British war dead with parades ( I forget the name of this town).
Well, actually, that's interesting because the name of that town is actually important in showing why I think you are wrong on this point. Until 2011, the name of that town was Wootton Bassett but in March 2011, it's name was changed by order of the Queen to Royal Wootton Bassett - the first time in over 100 years that the Monarch has bestowed Royal status on a town. This is something the Queen does have the power to do personally and she did it out of recognition as to what that town does.
To take the last first, good for her to infer Royal sanction for Wooten Bassett but perhaps a little too late and the beheading of the serviceman remains ignored unless I’ve missed something (which I willacknowledge if wrong). You have to admit the “hijacking” of Britain by the Islamists is pretty astounding...Sharia Law recognized in Britain, really?
I do understand the subtlety of what a Royal Assent involves but again, as a Colonialist, if you are the head of state, why not challenge the status quo? (Could this be the reason we countries are so dissimilar? I smell tea in the harbor!)
Please consider this exchange as no disrespect for your queen or your govt but think of it as learning through questioning...