| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:07 - Feb 20 with 598 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:11 - Feb 20 by DJR |
I know Peter Hennessy well, although not personally, and what you post is interesting.
Whilst they don't have the longevity or affection of the Queen, I am inclined to think that both the King and Prince William are "good chaps"
But even under the Queen it could be said that "the good chap theory of government" came under threat when Johnson (not a good chap) sought to prorogue Parliament.
In that case, the courts came to the rescue, but it does seem to me that the good chap theory of government could come under threat if Reform come to power because with policies such a leaving the ECHR, I think they will push things as far as they can when it comes to legal and other norms. [Post edited 20 Feb 8:12]
|
I don't know if you caught this episode of HARDtalk with former Justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, but it is quite damning of Boris Johnson:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ |  |
|  |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:10 - Feb 20 with 581 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:07 - Feb 20 by WeWereZombies |
I don't know if you caught this episode of HARDtalk with former Justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, but it is quite damning of Boris Johnson:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ |
When I get a chance I'll have a listen. |  | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:15 - Feb 20 with 565 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:01 - Feb 20 by DJR |
A few observations.
1. It was written advice from Lansley which would have been drafted by civil servants with knowledge.
2. Much more is being made of this issue than it warrants given that King's Consent applies to very little legislation, and what it applies to tends to be rather insignificant in the scheme of things.
3. The Queen can lobby all she wants if it affects her interests but the government doesn't have to accept what she says.
4. Lobbying and lobbyists more generally are a far bigger problem than the monarch.
5. I worked in the office where legislation is drafted for 24 years and am not aware of any Bill being shelved.
6. If the mood changed (as it is starting to do), and it was decided to abolish the monarchy, Parliament would be able to do this because it is sovereign, and the King would have to lump it. |
This is evidence of my fourth point.
https://www.theguardian.com/po
It's all a very murky world out there, even if lobbying firms aren't tainted by illegality.. [Post edited 20 Feb 12:16]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:17 - Feb 20 with 560 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:10 - Feb 20 by DJR |
When I get a chance I'll have a listen. |
Well, a watch actually, but don't hang around as it is only available for another six days. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:25 - Feb 20 with 548 views | Ryorry |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:11 - Feb 20 by DJR |
I know Peter Hennessy well, although not personally, and what you post is interesting.
Whilst they don't have the longevity or affection of the Queen, I am inclined to think that both the King and Prince William are "good chaps"
But even under the Queen it could be said that "the good chap theory of government" came under threat when Johnson (not a good chap) sought to prorogue Parliament.
In that case, the courts came to the rescue, but it does seem to me that the good chap theory of government could come under threat if Reform come to power because with policies such a leaving the ECHR, I think they will push things as far as they can when it comes to legal and other norms. [Post edited 20 Feb 8:12]
|
You should set yourself up as a time-management coach - where on earth do you get all the hours for all those long posts from?! |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:17 - Feb 20 with 494 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:07 - Feb 20 by WeWereZombies |
I don't know if you caught this episode of HARDtalk with former Justice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, but it is quite damning of Boris Johnson:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ |
There’s a surprise. I always thought Johnson was a fine upstanding and law-abiding citizen  |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:43 - Feb 20 with 466 views | baxterbasics |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:01 - Feb 20 by DJR |
A few observations.
1. It was written advice from Lansley which would have been drafted by civil servants with knowledge.
2. Much more is being made of this issue than it warrants given that King's Consent applies to very little legislation, and what it applies to tends to be rather insignificant in the scheme of things.
3. The Queen can lobby all she wants if it affects her interests but the government doesn't have to accept what she says.
4. Lobbying and lobbyists more generally are a far bigger problem than the monarch.
5. I worked in the office where legislation is drafted for 24 years and am not aware of any Bill being shelved.
6. If the mood changed (as it is starting to do), and it was decided to abolish the monarchy, Parliament would be able to do this because it is sovereign, and the King would have to lump it. |
We can discuss what is or isn't constitutional all day long.
But ultimately where does real power lie? With whoever commands the loyalty of the armed forces.
So if the time comes when Parliament tells the monarch "we've had enough of you, goodbye" and the response is "I don't think so" (or vice-versa, as per last civil war). What then? Each may call upon the military to get involved.
The armed forces personnel swear their oath of allegiance to the reigning British Monarch, their heirs and successors. They do not swear allegiance to the government of the day. Will they take this literally, or side with democratically elected parliament? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:49 - Feb 20 with 460 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 10:54 - Feb 20 by DJR |
I think it is very easy to get rather paranoid about this sort of thing if one doesn't support the monarchy (and I am one of those who don't).
It was calculated by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2012 that tax legislation ran to some 6,102 pages. It will no doubt have grown a lot since then, and if one is looking at overall legislation it must run well into to the many hundreds of thousands.
As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link.
Finally, of course Parliament couldn't abolish the monarchy without government support, but with government support it could even it if might be a bit of a battle, and use of the Parliament Act might be necessary to force it through. [Post edited 20 Feb 11:05]
|
"As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link."
PCO's responsibility is primarily to consider whether King’s/Prince’s Consent might be needed, and raise necessity before any procedure reaches the house. But you didn't actually seek Consent, right? The department does that themselves (3.16 https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). All this happens **before** introduction to parliament during confidential drafting stage (2.8 of https://www.gov.uk/government/ & 29.61 of https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). Keep me honest if I'm saying anything inaccurate so far DJR. So wouldn't it have been possible that you'd have identified Consent was needed at confidential drafting stage, and the bill either changed or never reached parliament and the public light of day at all as a result of the Consent process? And you'd never have known.
Also you (PCO) wouldn't have known if Consent was denied or qualified for Private Members Bills, bc you were "not involved in the drafting of private Members’ bills" - p4 of https://researchbriefings.file
I'm not saying Charles definitely vetos or shapes, I'm saying we don't know because there's no public record. We can't distinguish between "ministers chose not to proceed", and "there was pushback during Consent". Kind of important, no? [Post edited 20 Feb 14:15]
|  | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:07 - Feb 20 with 437 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:49 - Feb 20 by grow_our_own |
"As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link."
PCO's responsibility is primarily to consider whether King’s/Prince’s Consent might be needed, and raise necessity before any procedure reaches the house. But you didn't actually seek Consent, right? The department does that themselves (3.16 https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). All this happens **before** introduction to parliament during confidential drafting stage (2.8 of https://www.gov.uk/government/ & 29.61 of https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). Keep me honest if I'm saying anything inaccurate so far DJR. So wouldn't it have been possible that you'd have identified Consent was needed at confidential drafting stage, and the bill either changed or never reached parliament and the public light of day at all as a result of the Consent process? And you'd never have known.
Also you (PCO) wouldn't have known if Consent was denied or qualified for Private Members Bills, bc you were "not involved in the drafting of private Members’ bills" - p4 of https://researchbriefings.file
I'm not saying Charles definitely vetos or shapes, I'm saying we don't know because there's no public record. We can't distinguish between "ministers chose not to proceed", and "there was pushback during Consent". Kind of important, no? [Post edited 20 Feb 14:15]
|
And does this apply to Private Member's Bills ? | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:22 - Feb 20 with 388 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:07 - Feb 20 by WeWereZombies |
And does this apply to Private Member's Bills ? |
Consent happens in darkness for all Bills, not just PMBs. Occurs directly between the "minister’s Private Secretary to the King’s Private Secretary" - see 17.7 https://www.gov.uk/government/
Prior to the bill's introduction to parliament (and public record), and without the involvement of DJR's Parliamentary Counsel Office. [Post edited 20 Feb 14:24]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:33 - Feb 20 with 368 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:49 - Feb 20 by grow_our_own |
"As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link."
PCO's responsibility is primarily to consider whether King’s/Prince’s Consent might be needed, and raise necessity before any procedure reaches the house. But you didn't actually seek Consent, right? The department does that themselves (3.16 https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). All this happens **before** introduction to parliament during confidential drafting stage (2.8 of https://www.gov.uk/government/ & 29.61 of https://data.parliament.uk/Dep ). Keep me honest if I'm saying anything inaccurate so far DJR. So wouldn't it have been possible that you'd have identified Consent was needed at confidential drafting stage, and the bill either changed or never reached parliament and the public light of day at all as a result of the Consent process? And you'd never have known.
Also you (PCO) wouldn't have known if Consent was denied or qualified for Private Members Bills, bc you were "not involved in the drafting of private Members’ bills" - p4 of https://researchbriefings.file
I'm not saying Charles definitely vetos or shapes, I'm saying we don't know because there's no public record. We can't distinguish between "ministers chose not to proceed", and "there was pushback during Consent". Kind of important, no? [Post edited 20 Feb 14:15]
|
"So wouldn't it have been possible that you'd have identified Consent was needed at confidential drafting stage, and the bill either changed or never reached parliament and the public light of day at all as a result of the Consent process? And you'd never have known."
Given it is the PCO that receives instructions for a Bill, drafts the Bill (which goes through many iterations), advises (after consultation with the House authorities) whether Queen's consent is needed, and then introduces the final Bill into Parliament by sending it to the House authorities, it is impossible to argue that the PCO wouldn't know what went on.
As regards Private Members Bills some are government handouts which are drafted by the PCO, or some are amended with PCO help if they look like they might succeed and the government has no objection: I imagine this happened in the case of the Assisted Dying Bill.
And this is from your original link.
"In responding to a report of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the government confirmed that it would generally seek Queen’s or Prince’s consent for Private Members’ bills on request, even where it opposed the bill. (The government would however not generally seek consent where it was clear from the parliamentary timetable that there was no real prospect of the bill making progress, or the bill had been submitted without enough time to seek consent."
EDIT: the fact is that Bills don't just magically appear as some seem to think, and nor are they merely a case of paragraphing the instructions from the relevant government department. The Counsel in PCO means legal counsel. and there is an awful lot of toing and froing in order to ensure that something as effective and watertight as possible emerges from the policy concerned, which often needs a lot of working on. [Post edited 20 Feb 15:01]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:59 - Feb 20 with 330 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:33 - Feb 20 by DJR |
"So wouldn't it have been possible that you'd have identified Consent was needed at confidential drafting stage, and the bill either changed or never reached parliament and the public light of day at all as a result of the Consent process? And you'd never have known."
Given it is the PCO that receives instructions for a Bill, drafts the Bill (which goes through many iterations), advises (after consultation with the House authorities) whether Queen's consent is needed, and then introduces the final Bill into Parliament by sending it to the House authorities, it is impossible to argue that the PCO wouldn't know what went on.
As regards Private Members Bills some are government handouts which are drafted by the PCO, or some are amended with PCO help if they look like they might succeed and the government has no objection: I imagine this happened in the case of the Assisted Dying Bill.
And this is from your original link.
"In responding to a report of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the government confirmed that it would generally seek Queen’s or Prince’s consent for Private Members’ bills on request, even where it opposed the bill. (The government would however not generally seek consent where it was clear from the parliamentary timetable that there was no real prospect of the bill making progress, or the bill had been submitted without enough time to seek consent."
EDIT: the fact is that Bills don't just magically appear as some seem to think, and nor are they merely a case of paragraphing the instructions from the relevant government department. The Counsel in PCO means legal counsel. and there is an awful lot of toing and froing in order to ensure that something as effective and watertight as possible emerges from the policy concerned, which often needs a lot of working on. [Post edited 20 Feb 15:01]
|
"[PCO] advises (after consultation with the House authorities) whether Queen's consent is needed, and then introduces the final Bill "
"and then" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. That's when the invisible Consent happens. Isn't it right that the bill can go poof!? Abracadabra! And never introduced? As far as the public is concerned, the bill never existed. All without your (PCO) knowledge of why it didn't proceed nor ability to distinguish between "ministers chose not to", and "there was pushback during Consent"? The legislation docs I've cited say this is how the process works (minister seeks consent directly with Charles), and you've not refuted. | | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:10 - Feb 20 with 305 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:59 - Feb 20 by grow_our_own |
"[PCO] advises (after consultation with the House authorities) whether Queen's consent is needed, and then introduces the final Bill "
"and then" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. That's when the invisible Consent happens. Isn't it right that the bill can go poof!? Abracadabra! And never introduced? As far as the public is concerned, the bill never existed. All without your (PCO) knowledge of why it didn't proceed nor ability to distinguish between "ministers chose not to", and "there was pushback during Consent"? The legislation docs I've cited say this is how the process works (minister seeks consent directly with Charles), and you've not refuted. |
I don't really know what more I can say.
What we are talking about here is Bills that form part of the Government's legislative programme, and often they are mentioned in the King's speech.
I am not aware of any such Bill ever failing to be introduced, and even if that were the case, it wouldn't be due to King's consent. Early elections spring to mind as a reason but I suppose cold feet could be another (unlikely) reason.
Of course there are published Law Commission Bills and published draft Bills that might never be enacted but such Bills don't require King's consent. And it is often Parliamentary time or government indifference to non-political Bills that is the issue for them. [Post edited 20 Feb 15:20]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:08 - Feb 20 with 274 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:10 - Feb 20 by DJR |
I don't really know what more I can say.
What we are talking about here is Bills that form part of the Government's legislative programme, and often they are mentioned in the King's speech.
I am not aware of any such Bill ever failing to be introduced, and even if that were the case, it wouldn't be due to King's consent. Early elections spring to mind as a reason but I suppose cold feet could be another (unlikely) reason.
Of course there are published Law Commission Bills and published draft Bills that might never be enacted but such Bills don't require King's consent. And it is often Parliamentary time or government indifference to non-political Bills that is the issue for them. [Post edited 20 Feb 15:20]
|
"it wouldn't be due to King's consent" - you're overreaching. You can't assert that. Only the minister who seeks the monarch's consent can. You were involved before and after (if the bill proceeded to introduction). You and I can't know what happens during the intervening (14 days minimum of) backchannel dealings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Enough cap-doffing and hoping for the best that the head of state is a "good chap" and not an Andrew type. [Post edited 20 Feb 16:09]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:15 - Feb 20 with 262 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:08 - Feb 20 by grow_our_own |
"it wouldn't be due to King's consent" - you're overreaching. You can't assert that. Only the minister who seeks the monarch's consent can. You were involved before and after (if the bill proceeded to introduction). You and I can't know what happens during the intervening (14 days minimum of) backchannel dealings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Enough cap-doffing and hoping for the best that the head of state is a "good chap" and not an Andrew type. [Post edited 20 Feb 16:09]
|
You have at least two people in this thread who actually understand the law, who are telling you something with considerable confidence.
Just saying. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:51 - Feb 20 with 226 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:15 - Feb 20 by redrickstuhaart |
You have at least two people in this thread who actually understand the law, who are telling you something with considerable confidence.
Just saying. |
We're in agreement on what the law says redrick. The law also says "don't litter" and yet people do. On streets near me at least, there's more litter on pavements that aren't overlooked.
The most impeccable law credentials won't be able to re-interpret "minister’s Private Secretary to the King’s Private Secretary" (17.7 https://www.gov.uk/government/ ) to mean anything but ministers liaise with Charles over Consent, the PCO does not. Fact is, there's no audit-trail of whether vetos and shaping of laws occur in practice, only that the rules say: "do you mind awfully if we ask you to be a good chap?". Laws do disappear and change in darkness, and only the minister and select few in the department will know if due to Consent. [Post edited 20 Feb 16:54]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:07 - Feb 20 with 214 views | Mullet |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 11:32 - Feb 20 by Radlett_blue |
Oliver Cromwell managed it, although the trial of Charles I was of dubious legality. No endless appeals in those days, though! |
Nah, that's just revisionist propaganda from the Royals. It's a shame Cromwell was a religious zealot and an arsehole. Ironic it set back the republic centuries. |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:43 - Feb 20 with 142 views | GlasgowBlue |
AMW's plan to avoid all charges against him.
1.
2.
|  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:57 - Feb 20 with 124 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:43 - Feb 20 by baxterbasics |
We can discuss what is or isn't constitutional all day long.
But ultimately where does real power lie? With whoever commands the loyalty of the armed forces.
So if the time comes when Parliament tells the monarch "we've had enough of you, goodbye" and the response is "I don't think so" (or vice-versa, as per last civil war). What then? Each may call upon the military to get involved.
The armed forces personnel swear their oath of allegiance to the reigning British Monarch, their heirs and successors. They do not swear allegiance to the government of the day. Will they take this literally, or side with democratically elected parliament? |
There'd be a peaceful transition, like other recent monarchy to republic conversions. Eg Greece, Mauritius, and Barbados. No revolution, no blood. At the risk of repeating myself in another thread, fundamentally, it's just swapping an aristocrat for an elected head of state. Referendum with a clear outcome (not another Brexit), followed by an act of parliament replacing references to "crown" with "state", then elect a new president.
Retain links to our rich royal history. No purges. Royal place and infrastructure names can stay. CoE can even be linked to the president instead of monarch if that simplifies. Just we'll have more tourist revenue since all the palaces will be open, and head of state will cost less since the extended hanger-ons will be cut-off, and will properly protect the constitution (no more proroguing parliament).
Commonwealth countries would probably follow suit with their own referendums, but until and unless they do, they'd still have King Charles, who'd simply be Charles the private citizen here.
President needn't be a politician, eg current Irish president ran as an independent (former psychologist), they've also had an academic and a poet lately. We'd only get "President Blair" if we vote for him. Someone had the idea in another thread that candidates for new UK Pres **cannot be** a current or former member of parliament, which I quite like. [Post edited 20 Feb 19:10]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
