show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

THE ROYAL ASSENT

  • 5 Replies
  • 1525 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
THE ROYAL ASSENT
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:50:56 AM »


A 23-page pamphlet sets out the circumstances in which a bill needs the approval of the Queen or the Prince of Wales
 
Official legal advice about when Royal consent is required for legislation to proceed has been published after a long-running battle by the Cabinet Office to keep it under wraps.
 
The previously confidential 23-page pamphlet by Government lawyers sets out the circumstances in which a bill needs the approval of the Queen or the Prince of Wales.
 
It says the consent needs to be considered where legislation affects the Royal prerogative or hereditary revenues, the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall and personal property or interests of the Crown.
 
The document cites numerous examples in which the Queen's or Prince's consent was required for Parliament to debate a bill - a process distinct from Royal Assent, which is never refused once legislation has completed its passage through the two Houses.
 
They include the bills that led to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Pensions Acts of 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2011, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Other legislation requiring the Queen's or Prince's consent has covered child maintenance, Tony Blair's plans for identity cards and higher education.
 
In at least three cases since 1990 - none mentioned in the pamphlet - Queen's consent has not been granted, preventing legislation from going any further.
 
That was the case with Labour MP Tam Dalyell's Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill in 1999, which would have transferred from the Queen to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes, the Palace of Westminster (Removal of Crown Immunity) Bill in 1998 and the Reform of the House of Lords Bill in 1990.
 
The document, drawn up by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel drawing on Erskine May, points out: "If Queen's or Prince's consent is not signified, the question on the relevant stage of the bill cannot be put." Buckingham Palace said consent was only refused on the advice of ministers.
 
The pamphlet was initially requested for release under the Freedom of Information Act by PhD student John Kirkhope in August 2011, but the Cabinet Office objected on the grounds that it was covered by legal privilege.
 
Despite being overruled by the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, the Cabinet Office refused to publish the document until it was taken to an Information Tribunal by Mr Kirkhope.


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
Re: THE ROYAL ASSENT
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2013, 11:58:31 AM »
http://news.uk.msn.com/guardian/secret-papers-show-extent-of-senior-royals-veto-over-bills-168666
 Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.
 The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.
 New laws required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.
 In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
 She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.
 In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".
 "This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.
 "It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."
 The veto has been used by Charles on more than a dozen occasions and has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.
 The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.
 "There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.
 The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.
 The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.
 Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.
 The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns ?18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.
 A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."
 A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."
 Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.
 "The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."
 The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.
 It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Source= MIKE C.
 
www.lincolnshireblog.com
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 12:07:04 PM by the leveller »


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
Re: THE ROYAL ASSENT
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2013, 12:00:06 PM »
According to the English Constitutional arrangments of parliament every single bill needs the Royal Assent before it can become law. Nor is the Royal assent a mere formality which cannot be refused. Indeed there are a good many occassions when it should be refused for the benefit of the Sovereign's subjects and the Kingdom. Albert

[email protected]~-

Buy Blacks Law Dictionary - Amazon
[email protected]~-

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
Re: THE ROYAL ASSENT
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2013, 12:03:18 PM »
As said in prior mail, why would any legal privilege be used to object?
 Because if researched with the law and all other docs one will find the many unlawful conflict of interests.
 
 H M may have been deliberately manipulated but she is not stupid and knew this intent of war like our overseas aid is just being NWO EUSSRr unlawfuly used to cater for big business interests.
Paul
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 12:04:46 PM by the leveller »


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
Re: THE ROYAL ASSENT
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2013, 12:08:04 PM »
I feel this has given us a lead into asking in depth questions as the information released refers to 39 bills on which the Queen and Charles have been consulted but not the other bills. Albert


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3503
  • +75/-0
Re: THE ROYAL ASSENT
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2013, 09:13:35 PM »
The British Queen and her son Prince Charles enjoy a veto power, by which they can annul any new laws being drafted against their interest in the government, it has been revealed.
 

The revelation came after the coalition government lost the battle to keep information about the level of royal interference in politics secret.
 
Governmental papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers showed that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals? little-known power to approve or reject new laws.
 
The documents also revealed that the power has been used to abolish planned legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.
 
The documents, named as the internal Whitehall pamphlet, were only released following a court order and revealed that ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of lawmaking than was originally understood.
 
The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from Elizabeth II or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.
 
In one incident on the matter, the Queen completely banned the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member?s bill that required the transfer of power from the monarch to parliament to allow military strikes against Iraq.
 
The British monarch was also asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the legality of a civil partnership that would bind her.
 
"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.
 
George added, "At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."
 
Director of the republican campaign for an elected head of state ?Republic? Graham Smith has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.
 
BGH/MOL/HE
 186 18
 



 258


Comments (9)

Add Comment Click Here




Note: The views expressed and the links provided on our comment pages are the personal views of individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV.


Kathie Berkin

Jan 17, 2013 9:15 AM

 I think this is very good because Prince Charles has very good judgement, does more good for the ordinary people than most MPs who are there for their own interest. (32[[]%]proposed rise when everyone else is 1[[]%]). The Queen has excellent judgement and has the country's interest at heart. She works hard still and has more influence abroad.

Click to Rate ReplyRating0


David

Jan 16, 2013 2:16 PM

I think this is a good thing actually because it is a back-up to prevent the government from doing things that are against the will of the people that they were not elected to do. It is not in her interest to intervene too much so when she does so it must be in the interest of the people.

Click to Rate ReplyRating16


Oh Reallyin reply to David

1/16/2013 4:59:54 PM

Wake up! - the politicians are there to appear to represent the people (because history shows the early royals did not) and if the queen was there as a backup she would have represented the millions who marched against war in Iraq and not sided with the likes of blair and the big corporations that profit from war and rebuilding infrastructure.

Click to Rate Rating19


REALIST

Jan 15, 2013 6:53 PM

This is called "RULE THROUGH THE BACK DOOR", or "DRIVE WHILE SITTING ON THE BACK SEAT WITH A DUMMY CHAUFFEUR PRETENDING TO BE DRIVING"

Click to Rate ReplyRating21


Theo C Cupierin reply to REALIST

1/16/2013 12:45:00 PM

Yeh - but who's pulling the Queens strings? She may be driving the car from the back seat. But the car itself is on a ferry and someone else is sailing the ship!

Click to Rate Rating10


colin norwood

Jan 15, 2013 6:14 PM

anyone who knows English history will know that an act of Parliament needs the Royal assent, it makes sure it cannot just pass laws that may be against the interest of the people the Monarch is the final check, and is independent of politics as the future head of state the Prince of Wales also has the right too be kept informed so when he takes over he knows what is going on.

Click to Rate ReplyRating2


ali.ukin reply to colin norwood

1/16/2013 3:16:45 AM

a very few people know of this law/arrangement in the uk, queen runs the uk through the back door.

Click to Rate Rating15


RockyRacoon

Jan 15, 2013 6:0 PM

It can also be used in the colonies like Canada where the "Honour of the Crown" can be invoked when we have an irresponsible government or when it comes to First Nations Treaty Rights. If she would act for the people rather than the institutions of power has yet to be tested but once out of the bag it would be hard not to go along with First Nations Treaty Rights. I think we have that Harper misfit nailed on this one. Hopefully they will appeal to the Honour of the Crown and force the Government of Canada to respect First Nations Treaty Rights. It would benefit all Canadian's but their racial views just can pierce through that far they don't realize protecting environment is in their interests as well. In fact at this stage FN is all we have left to protect us from having our laws further gutted on behalf of Koch Bro Tarsands.

Click to Rate ReplyRating4


See Through Itin reply to RockyRacoon

1/16/2013 4:48:20 PM

I think the point has been missed here - the politicians are there to appear to represent the people (because history shows the early royals did not) and if the queen was there as a backup she would have represented the millions who marched against war in Iraq and not sided with the likes of blair
SOURCE =  Press TV
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 09:19:06 PM by the leveller »


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL