Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It's a good question because we have seen that the 3-person quorum of the Privy Council that went to Balmoral to advise the Queen on prorogation was, if legal, a Conservative Establishment stitch-up.

However, in this case the controversy would be much greater and more open. Limiting the Queen's advice to Ree-Smogg and two stooges, to the exclusion of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, would cause such a noise that the very position of the monarch would be called in question. Other advisors (they exist in the upper echelons of the Civil Service and at the Palace) might well suggest that the Queen think mightily carefully before doing the muppet's bidding.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 08:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To make the point I've made before - this assumes the other advisors aren't on the same side as Mogg.

IMO a Conservative/Establishment stitch-up is perfectly believable.

The one upside is that British people - against all precedent and expectation - took to the streets to protest prorogation. I think that raised some eyebrows and made a stitch-up less likely.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 10:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the other point is that the Conservatives and the Establishment are no longer co-terminus... The Conservatives are turning disaster capitalism into disaster politics, which is not good for the Queen or for much of the Establishment either, whereas Corbyn has been a very convention bound leader of her Majesty's opposition.

But the one person who has embodied convention over the past 66 years is the Queen herself, to the point where, in the aftermath of Diana's death, her hidebound adherence to convention nearly destroyed the Monarchy itself. At the time her sycophantic admirer, one Tony Blair, had to take her firmly by her gloved hand and advise some concessions to popular sentiment where in her own interest, even if much to her discomfort.

What would happen if two former PM's, John Major and Tony Blair were to advise her, either privately or in public, that it was in her Majesty's interest to yield to the Will of Parliament and appoint an alternative PM? After all, she can only enter the House of Commons to deliver her Queen's Speech with the permission of the House of Commons, and it would not be unprecedented for her to be refused entry...

But the point stands: whose advice must she take if BoJo loses the confidence of the House of Commons?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 10:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't think of any finer example of the Establishment than Smuggie flanked by two top Tories. My point would be that the Establishment has slid to the chaotic right.

As to whose advice the Queen must take, the Privy Council is an obvious answer. But what form of the Privy Council? Who can influence this? Obviously, the PM, and the Lord High Snooty-Pants President of the Council. They would have to be prevented, by Parliamentary and public pressure, from pulling a fast one as at Balmoral. If Bozzer stayed on after a no-confidence vote, that would trigger an immense outcry. The Queen herself would have to understand that this was a deep constitutional crisis endangering the institution of the monarchy itself (which is said to be dear to her heart). She would have to tread carefully and consult more widely than with the quorum-of-3.

An article from The Guardian a month ago gives opposing expert views on her powers:

As the Queen's powers have been cited in the no-deal Brexit debate, constitutional experts are divided on whether she could intervene to dismiss Boris Johnson and invite a new prime minister to form a government should he lose a vote of no confidence

Doesn't offer much certainty.


Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:15:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with the "UK Constitution" isn't just that it is unwritten, but that it is so unclear, and subject to so much uncertainty. It also rather places Her Majesty in an invidious position, I'm sure one would rather avoid...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One would quite certainly wish to avoid invidious positions...

Unfortunately this does rather place need for fine discernment and huge responsibility on the shoulders of a 93-year-old.

Excellent argument in favour of a republic with an age ceiling for the president. That might help focus one's mind.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 11:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No thanks. The idea of President blair, or Major leaves me somewhat nauseous, but the idea that we might have had President Thacher makes me consider running for the loo.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The notion there was of a non-executive president who would just do pretty much what the Queen does now. As, roughly, in Germany or Italy now. Not an American or French president.

I can't see Bliar or Thatcher angling for a job like that.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
< pick teeth, suck vigorously >
I understand, sumbuddy managed to submit their candidate to the Comish roster ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 02:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 03:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My point would be that the Establishment has slid to the chaotic right.

Have I mentioned that if I regard Brexit as some sort of rebellion by the old aristocracy it makes more sense?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 12:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It certainly gives a fresh and useful perspective, though not to forget the decisive role of libertarian billionaires. The English aristocracy has always tolerated the rise of sufficiently wealthy nouveaux riches into its ranks, so we could count the Murdochs and the Barclays in with them.



Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 01:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm confused.

Surely, historical precedent is that when a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, the Monarch consults the Leader of His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Is this done exclusively on the advice of the repudiated PM? Or is it, rather, the automatic option?

Can John Thomas of Pfeff Hall simply refuse to do the decent thing?

Is he not only above the law, but above the Monarch?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 02:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And there ended the lesson is basic British constitutional law.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 03:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The ambiguity of the Queen's Powers could be used to her advantage in the old tradition of the Crown siding with the populace, even though that populace be divided. I suspect that, were the Queen to take the initiative, on the advise of selected council, (her choosing between the various councilors on offer), and resolving the crisis on the basis of enabling parliamentary action, that such action would redound to her credit as perhaps the crowning achievement of her long reign.

The Queen would NOT be deciding the Brexit issue. She would, instead, be providing a way for the public and Parliament to chose. Likewise, a motion by Parliament to have the Queen send a letter on behalf of Parliament requesting an extension of the Article 50 deadline would probably be accepted by the EU. The very fact of such a letter would be irrefutable proof of profound change in the UK government from its current state and a way out of a stalemate for both the UK and the EU.
 

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 05:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And such actions would enable the situation to be resolved in a manner consistent with the constitution of the UK, such as it is.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2019 at 05:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
they took to the streets over Iraq, and in much heavier numbers. Parliament ignored them then cos they wanted to do something else, and they'll ignore them now, for precisely the same reason.

Democracy, she is slippery

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 10th, 2019 at 01:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series