Royal 'consent' to laws revealed after FOI battle

[Chippiewill]

Details of the extent to which the Queen and the Prince of Wales are asked to give their consent to legislation have been published for the first time.

The information, which the government initially sought to stop being revealed, shows they were consulted on changes to higher education, ID cards and paternity pay among other issues.

Campaign group Republic said such a "royal veto" should be scrapped.

Buckingham Palace said the process was one of "established convention".

All legislation must be approved by the Head of State before it becomes law under a process known as Royal Assent - an important constitutional procedure but one largely now regarded as a formality.

But a newly published document reveals the Queen and Prince Charles have specifically been asked to approve a number of bills during their parliamentary passage - ones relating to royal powers and the interests of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Guidance drawn up by parliamentary lawyers and setting out the "issues to be considered" regarding consent, was released after officials failed to prevent its release under Freedom of Information laws following a long-running battle.

It shows that the Queen was asked to approve changes to child maintenance in 2007, national insurance in 2004 and paternity pay in 2006 because they would apply to employees of the Royal Households and the "interests of the crown" were likely to be affected.

Legislation introducing tuition fees in 2004 required approval because of the Crown's historical role as a visitor of universities while a bill legalising civil partnerships needed consent because of a declaration on its validity which "would bind Her Majesty".

The document also reveals that the Queen did not consent to a Private Members Bill in 1999 which proposed transferring historic formal powers to declare war - under the royal prerogative - from the Monarch to Parliament.

'Astonishing'

Although no reason was given for this, the bill was not supported by the Labour government at the time and had no chance of becoming law anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828

A frankly absurd article with sweeping implications. The crown has no real powers, the supposed consent is no more than a formality.

[Jorders]

Thats odd, when I did Law as an A-Level they always told us that Royal Assent was merely a formality these days and that the last time it was actually used properly was some random law over 100 years ago.

[GommeInc]

Thats odd, when I did Law as an A-Level they always told us that Royal Assent was merely a formality these days and that the last time it was actually used properly was some random law over 100 years ago.

Which was and is correct as far as books go. It's been revealed that it seems the Queen / the Head of State have been approached and has approached Parliament regarding proposed changes to legislation. So when you studied it at A-level you were not taught the wrong thing It's a bit like being told Pluto was one of the planets of our solar system, which was correct back then but has since changed.

As for the matter at hand. I don't see what the fuss is over. Our elected Government is a bit useless and the Queen going beyond the formalities of her Royal Assent is the lease of our troubles, particularly when there doesn't appear to be any problems. It looks as though she was involved because it would affect the Royal household and the estates.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great news, this is exactly the point in having a monarchy - we are afterall a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. The same applies in the United States which is a constitutional republic as opposed to a democracy. The constitutional safegards exist to protect the most basic principles and i'd personally like to see Her Majesty intervene much more as I see our consitutional and liberties being trashed by our elected (and loathed) politicians year on year.

One of the changes (unconstititonal) that she blocked was a move by MPs in the Blair era to move war powers to parliament... a very sinister prospect which would have led to Blair and his cronies being given Presidential-like powers concerning war and defence.

[Chippiewill]

One of the changes (unconstititonal) that she blocked was a move by MPs in the Blair era to move war powers to parliament... a very sinister prospect which would have led to Blair and his cronies being given Presidential-like powers concerning war and defence.

I believe she blocked it as it was never going to be passed anyway.

[mrwoooooooo]

Good. I'd rather let the royal family decide things than the bunch of clowns in parliament

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2