Posted on 09/09/2019 8:51:24 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
The last time a British monarch vetoed a bill was, I believe, in 1707. So this whole Queen-signing thing is just theater.
To: Lurking Libertarian
“So, Boris is either going to betray Brexit, or he’s going to break the law and set a terrible precedent for the future. What an idiot. I thought he’d have used the Royal Prerogative to block the bill. Guess I’ll be voting Brexit Party when the election finally does happen.”
Pearl clutch much? The leftists are not playing by any rulebook besides ‘Rules ifor Radicals’ and the ‘Communist Manifesto’ yet you insist that we follows the rules and put our heads on the chopping block. Sad
This just shows I am no good at predicting... I was one that thought she would not approve.
William, Harry and their father all lean left for sure.
William, Harry and their father all lean left for sure.
The last time a British monarch vetoed a bill was, I believe, in 1707. So this whole Queen-signing thing is just theater.
><
You’re right.
It’s just hard to imagine them having the nerve to stop it after a second vote. But....
Well, 1701 wasn’t that long a time since 1649, when Charles I lost his head over taking on Parliament.
Very risky...
I think it's unclear whether there is any way for Parliament to enforce that -- he can just not request it, and I'm not sure what they could do about it. Alternatively, he could just say to the EU "I am required by law to make a request, but I'm now going to tell you all the reasons you shouldn't grant it, and how I'm going to make life a living hell for the EU if you do."
I don't think the EU will have the required unanimity for an extension is Boris himself opposes it.
> I was one that thought she would not approve. <
The British monarch does not have the same freedom to veto as does the US President. When a US president vetoes a bill, it’s no big deal. It’s just an expected part of the job.
But when a British monarch vetoes a bill, it’s a big deal. A really big deal. It’s considered a slap in the face to Parliament, and an overreach. That’s why it hasn’t been done since 1707.
So why have that power if it really can’t be used? Maybe an expert will correct me here. Tradition aside, I guess a monarch’s veto would be a check against some prime minister who wanted to be a dictator.
(Although it must be noted that the Italian king had reserve powers. But he did nothing to stop Mussolini.)
“..(Although it must be noted that the Italian king had reserve powers. But he did nothing to stop Mussolini.)...”
Probably because he knew that public opinion was on Benny the Moose’s side. He did fire the Moose when the Allies invaded. Again because he knew opinion had turned and he was trying to ingratiate himself to the Allies.
Here the Queen likely has public opinion on her side. So it would the Monarch during its constitutional duty of protecting the public from the excesses of Parliament.
King Vittorio Emanuele III was monarch of Italy until 1947 but Mussolini called all the shots.
A joke at the time had Musso telling the King, “if you don’t sign my decrees I’ll remove your portrait from all the sardine cans!”
Wow! I glad we left when we did!
>> I was hoping that Boris would convince her not to sign it. <<
The last time a monarch actually "vetoed" a bill in the UK was in the early 1800s. Although she still has those powers on paper, the office is purely ceremonial now. If she were to exercise her "powers" in modern government, the result would be national outrage and likely re-ignite the debate to abolish the monarchy.
It's similar to how state governments in the USA technically retain the power to establish a statewide "official church", since the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government. No state has exercised this "power" since the 1830s. It would be "problematic" if say, the Utah legislature declared the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be the "Official State Religion" of Utah and decreed in the Utah State Constitution that they get special rights and privileges in government.
Italy, Poland or Hungary do not want to be blamed by the British people when things go belly up after the UK crashes out on Halloween. They won’t veto.
France might.
Brexit is never going to happen. Globalism wins.
A lot of countries have "powers" that exist on paper but are never used in real life. I'll give another example in our own government: the third amendment of the U.S. Constitution bans the government from quartering troops in people's homes during PEACE time. It explicitly says they MAY do so during a time of war "in a manner to be prescribed by law" , so it would be perfectly Constitutional for the U.S. Congress to pass laws DURING major wars authorizing U.S. military personal to show up at your home and demand you give them room and board for whatever duration they need.
Of course, the U.S. Congress is NEVER going to "exercise" this "power". Modern military situations have made it totally obsolete, and there would be national outrage if Congress told Americans they have to provide free food and sleeping accommodations for any active military personnel who need it due to a war happening, for example post 9/11.
There is no time for a second referendum and no guarantees either. What will happen now is one of two things
1. Delay tactics by boris followed by a Halloween crash out no deal
Or
2. Boris will come back with the Theresa May plan plus northern Ireland in a backstop (not the whole UK), get it approved by parliament and leave with may deal 2.0 and he’ll be acclaimed a hero for delivering Brexit
I think your second option is the most likely. The British people voted for Brexit, but all the pro-Brexit campaigners assured the voters there would be a deal. I think a majority of voters are now opposed to a no-deal Brexit, because of fears of re-igniting violence in Northern Island.
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.