UK The Queen

[Gethelred]

This thread is actively moderated, let's behave like adults, shall we?

For conversation on an Australian Republic:

Who wants a Republic?

I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Cooldude]

The Queen, the royal family, the monarchy, republic, etc seems to be one of those issues which generates strong passions both for and against, so naturally debate (and the manner of debate) will reflect that, rightly or wrongly.

I honestly think this Queen is one of the better British monarches in their history, but that isn't a high bar, most of them are assholes. I said it a few pages ago but she will be missed

But I'm finding a lot of people, particularly American news media, who are going full bootlicking mode and are really angry about the "lack of respect" for the Queen really weird, is all. These Americans need to read some US history

 

[Roylion]

LOL.
Still doubling down with your Wiki bullshit.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Why would Charles make a proclamation that he would give it up, if it wasn't his?

All that statement proves is that you don't know what you are talking about. He said.

"I take this opportunity to confirm my willingness and intention to continue the tradition of surrendering the hereditary revenues, including the crown estate, to my government for the benefit of all, in return for the sovereign grant, which supports my official duties as head of state and head of nation."

Do you understand what he actually said? Do you know what the Sovereign Grant is or how it was first granted? Or are you just making up more material to suit your agenda. Found my quote yet?

Incidentally the Governor-General will officially proclaim Charles III as the new sovereign of Australia tomorrow morning.

At 11 am tomorrow the Prime Minister will lead a meeting of ministers, acting as the Executive Council, to formally recommend the governor-general to issue the proclamation in Australia at a special meeting at Government House in Canberra.

Following the meeting the GG will go to Parliament House and officially proclaim King Charles III the new sovereign of Australia amid a 21-gun salute.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

But I'm finding a lot of people, particularly American news media, who are going full bootlicking mode and are really angry about the "lack of respect" for the Queen really weird, is all. These Americans need to read some US history

One upon a time they were upset over there about all their taxes going to the British Crown without them having any kind of a say in their nation's day-to-day running.

So they f*cked them out of there.

Proper order!

 

[Roylion]

When you use powers, political powers, that can only be conferred by someone with that power, you can be said to be 'taking advantage' of the availability of said power.

The Governor-General's role is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers. Scott Morrison's actions in taking on multiple ministries had nothing to do with the reserve powers.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The Governor-General's role is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers. Scott Morrison's actions in taking on multiple ministries had nothing to do with the reserve powers.

Fair enough. That is what I was asking for clarification on. A genuine question.

 

[Number37]

The Governor-General's role is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers. Scott Morrison's actions in taking on multiple ministries had nothing to do with the reserve powers.

The GG sits on the Executive Council, as the Queen's rep.
It is only by convention that he acts 'on advice' from the govt.
Nothing stopping him from ignoring that advice or acting of his own accord.

Exhibit A:
Kerr sacked Whitlam of his own accord, not 'on advice' from the govt.

 

[Roylion]

The GG sits on the Executive Council, as the Queen's rep.
It is only be convention that he acts 'on advice' from the govt.
Nothing stopping him from ignoring that advice or acting of his own accord.

Exhibit A:
Kerr sacked Whitlam of his own accord, not 'on advice' from the govt.

Once again. In the day to day running of the government, the GG is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers.

Key duties include:

• Presiding over the Federal Executive Council
• Facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government
• Dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for a Federal election
• Commissioning the Prime Minister; appointing Ministers and Assistant Ministers; and swearing-in other statutory positions
• Holding and possibly exercising the Reserve Powers. These are powers that the Governor-General may, in some situations, exercise without Ministerial advice or even contrary to Ministerial advice.

The reserve powers include:

• the power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election results in a hung Parliament
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the House of Representatives has passed a 'No Confidence' motion against the Prime Minister
• the power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives contrary to Ministerial advice. The refusal by a Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives on Ministerial advice has been the most frequently used of the reserve powers in Australia.
• the power to refuse a double dissolution (this has not been exercised in Australia)
• the power to withhold assent to Bills that Parliament has passed and contrary to Ministerial advice (i.e. the power of veto)
• the independent discretion to select a new Prime Minister in circumstances where the outgoing Prime Minister resigns after a defeat in the House of Representatives. It is argued that there is a convention which fetters the use of the Governor-General's power such that he or she is obliged to follow the advice of the resigning Prime Minister as to the suitable replacement. However the contrary argument is that such a convention would mean the demise of the reserve power leaving no independent discretion to act in the face of unlawful or clearly erroneous advice. So the reserve power exists to allow the Governor-General discretion to reject advice of the resigning Prime Minister not given in good faith.
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the Government cannot obtain supply and the Prime Minister refuses to resign or to call an election. Some have argued that the action to dismiss Whitlam in 1975 by GG John Kerr was premature, because supply had not yet been formally denied although there is little doubt that the Governor-General could have exercised the power once supply had been refused. The contrary argument is that in the circumstances the dismissal was necessary to avoid economic chaos and possibly social unrest, since the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary Supply bills and the fact that no election could be held before the existing supply would have run out, meant that the Government would have been soon to unable to pay its public servants (including the armed forces) and contractors and was preparing nevertheless to continue to govern.

Three of the reserve powers were exercised together in 1909 when, after a motion of no-confidence moved against the Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, had been carried, the Governor-General refused to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives, dismissed Andrew Fisher and commissioned Alfred Deakin as Prime Minister.

 

[Number37]

Once again. In the day to day running of the government, the GG is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers.

Key duties include:

• Presiding over the Federal Executive Council
• Facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government
• Dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for a Federal election
• Commissioning the Prime Minister; appointing Ministers and Assistant Ministers; and swearing-in other statutory positions
• Holding and possibly exercising the Reserve Powers. These are powers that the Governor-General may, in some situations, exercise without Ministerial advice or even contrary to Ministerial advice.

The reserve powers include:

• the power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election results in a hung Parliament
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the House of Representatives has passed a 'No Confidence' motion against the Prime Minister
• the power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives contrary to Ministerial advice. The refusal by a Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives on Ministerial advice has been the most frequently used of the reserve powers in Australia.
• the power to refuse a double dissolution (this has not been exercised in Australia)
• the power to withhold assent to Bills that Parliament has passed and contrary to Ministerial advice (i.e. the power of veto)
• the independent discretion to select a new Prime Minister in circumstances where the outgoing Prime Minister resigns after a defeat in the House of Representatives. It is argued that there is a convention which fetters the use of the Governor-General's power such that he or she is obliged to follow the advice of the resigning Prime Minister as to the suitable replacement. However the contrary argument is that such a convention would mean the demise of the reserve power leaving no independent discretion to act in the face of unlawful or clearly erroneous advice. So the reserve power exists to allow the Governor-General discretion to reject advice of the resigning Prime Minister not given in good faith.
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the Government cannot obtain supply and the Prime Minister refuses to resign or to call an election. Some have argued that the action to dismiss Whitlam in 1975 by GG John Kerr was premature, because supply had not yet been formally denied although there is little doubt that the Governor-General could have exercised the power once supply had been refused. The contrary argument is that in the circumstances the dismissal was necessary to avoid economic chaos and possibly social unrest, since the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary Supply bills and the fact that no election could be held before the existing supply would have run out, meant that the Government would have been soon to unable to pay its public servants (including the armed forces) and contractors and was preparing nevertheless to continue to govern.

Three of the reserve powers were exercised together in 1909 when, after a motion of no-confidence moved against the Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, had been carried, the Governor-General refused to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives, dismissed Andrew Fisher and commissioned Alfred Deakin as Prime Minister.

There is no way of knowing a complete list of the "reserve" powers. It even says so on the website you cut & pasted your reply from.
"Reserve" powers are prerogative powers.
According to the High Court....prerogative powers can be abrogated by express words of a statute.
For there to be no other power under the prerogative powers, other than the ones listed in Conventions, as you suggest, there must have been a statute that expressly abrogated that power.
FYI, there hasn't been, and there is really no way of knowing what a prerogative power is until it is used, then the HC will decide if it has been abrogated, or not.

Even in cases where a statute has expressly abrogated a prerogative power and despite the fact the High Court said statute trumps prerogative, there has been numerous cases where it did not work out that way in practice.
Exhibit A:
The Migration Act contains express words to determine who is and who isn't allowed into the country.
In the Tampa Case the govt argued that its prerogative power to determine who is and who isn't allowed into the country was not completely abrogated by the words which purported to do so in the Migration Act. The High Court agreed with the govt.

Also according to the High Court....prerogative powers can also/sometimes/maybe be abrogated by the passage of time.
In the Tampa case the govt also tried to use some power from the 1600's to argue the same thing as it did above.
The High Court said, yeah nah, it's been too long, that power has been abrogated by the passage of time.
At the same time the High Court said some powers never get abrogated by the passage of time, like the power to determine who is and who isn't allowed into a country.
Which other powers fall into this category? They declined to say. We'll tell you when we know was the best they could offer.

Exhibit B:
Henry the 8th.
Do you still suck at history or have you taught your year 7/8 students about how Henry had a penchant for ruling by proclamation because, according to Henry, he had the divine right of a King.... to overrule parliament, the church and anyone else who stood in his way. (sounds a like bit Scummo ol Henry)

The last time we went around this circle you used Wiki references to claim things are absolute when they are not absolute.
If only it was that simple.
Conventions don't mean shit. Nothing stopping the Queen or the GG or the PM from ignoring Convention.

As an aside.
You failed to answer my previous question.
Why does Charles need to proclaim he will give his loot to the people, if it isn't his to begin with? (as you previously claimed)

 

[Roylion]

There is no way of knowing a complete list of the "reserve" powers. I
"Reserve" powers are prerogative powers.

That's correct. Where did I say they were not?

According to the High Court....prerogative powers can be abrogated by express words of a statute.
For there to be no other power under the prerogative powers, other than the ones listed in Conventions, as you suggest, there must have been a statute that expressly abrogated that power.

Certainly a prerogative of the Crown may be abrogated, curtailed or displaced by a statute that directly regulates the same subject matter.

For example the prerogative cannot be exercised to deprive a person of liberty or interfere with their private property, create an offence, raise taxes, or compel persons to give evidence or produce documents in relation to a government inquiry b ecause there are statutes that directly deal with these matters. Nor can the prerogative be exercised to change statutes or the common law.

Yes? And? What's your point?

Do you still suck at history

Ironic. I had to teach you what the Magna Carta actually was last time we had this 'discussion'.

or have you taught your year 7/8 students about how Henry had a penchant for ruling by proclamation because, according to Henry, he had the divine right of a King.... to overrule parliament, the church and anyone else who stood in his way. (sounds a like bit Scummo ol Henry)

Henry VIII was an absolute monarch. Do you understand the difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy? The monarch in England used to have much more power under a feudal system and gradually had those powers stripped away via a series of royal charters, bills and other such legislation.

For example in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the 'Declaration of Right' was issued in February 1689 and the subsequent issuing of the Bill of Rights in 1689 stripped away a number of the powers of the monarch

The 'Declaration of Right' had thirteen clauses limiting the powers of the monarch. Some of the more important ones are as follows:

• The power of suspending and executing laws rests in the hands of Parliament.
• The Crown does not have the legal authority to dispense or execute laws.
• The imposition of any taxes by the Crown without the permission of Parliament is illegal.
• A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal.
• Members of Parliament have freedom of speech and their proceedings should not be questioned in any place outside of Parliament.
• Parliament should be held frequently to uphold the laws.

This was essentially the end of absolute monarchy with the most important the vesting of control of the military in Parliament, not the monarch. This meant the monarch could not impose his or her will on the people by force. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes or make royal appointments.

The 'Declaration of Right' was written into the English Bill of Rights which is part of the British constitution.

The coronation oath reflected the changes. Mary II and her husband William III swore to govern according to "the statutes in Parliament agreed on" instead of by "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England".

Even the Royal succession was to be decided by Parliament as the representatives of the people.

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession from this idea that it was derived from 'God' (you know - the Divine Right of Kings") and establishing the idea of a "contract" between ruler and people (as per John Locke for example). This idea was re-inforced later by the 1701 Act of Settlement which placed further restrictions on the activities of the monarch. For example, the monarch was not allowed to leave the United Kingdom without the consent of parliament, although this was later repealed by a further Act of Parliament. However it still demonstrates very well that it was Parliament that held the power now and not the monarch who was limiting to exercising reserve powers.

Since 1689 Parliament's power has steadily increased, while that of the monarch has steadily declined.

Conventions don't mean s**t. Nothing stopping the Queen or the GG or the PM from ignoring Convention.

Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as witholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government. The people have the ultimate say. A referendum can remove the monarchy.

It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising the reserve powers and will therefore act mostly by convention. The current system has a number of checks and balances.

As an aside.
You failed to answer my previous question.
Why does Charles need to proclaim he will give his loot to the people, if it isn't his to begin with? (as you previously claimed)

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment called the Civil List.

The arrangement of George III has been renewed ever since by subsequent monarchs at the start of every reign – Queen Elizabeth II did this upon ascending the throne in 1952 and Charles did it yesterday. The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign’s private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown".

The Sovereign Grant currently provides the source of funding for The Palace based on 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate. Royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are held in trust by the monarch, to which the monarch is expected to use the Sovereign Grant to maintain these palaces.

 

[Satan]

Extra long weekend for victoria ,22nd PH

 

[Gough]

Once again. In the day to day running of the government, the GG is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. That is not exercising the reserve powers.

Key duties include:

• Presiding over the Federal Executive Council
• Facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government
• Dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for a Federal election
• Commissioning the Prime Minister; appointing Ministers and Assistant Ministers; and swearing-in other statutory positions
• Holding and possibly exercising the Reserve Powers. These are powers that the Governor-General may, in some situations, exercise without Ministerial advice or even contrary to Ministerial advice.

The reserve powers include:

• the power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election results in a hung Parliament
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the House of Representatives has passed a 'No Confidence' motion against the Prime Minister
• the power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives contrary to Ministerial advice. The refusal by a Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives on Ministerial advice has been the most frequently used of the reserve powers in Australia.
• the power to refuse a double dissolution (this has not been exercised in Australia)
• the power to withhold assent to Bills that Parliament has passed and contrary to Ministerial advice (i.e. the power of veto)
• the independent discretion to select a new Prime Minister in circumstances where the outgoing Prime Minister resigns after a defeat in the House of Representatives. It is argued that there is a convention which fetters the use of the Governor-General's power such that he or she is obliged to follow the advice of the resigning Prime Minister as to the suitable replacement. However the contrary argument is that such a convention would mean the demise of the reserve power leaving no independent discretion to act in the face of unlawful or clearly erroneous advice. So the reserve power exists to allow the Governor-General discretion to reject advice of the resigning Prime Minister not given in good faith.
• the power to dismiss a Prime Minister in circumstances where the Government cannot obtain supply and the Prime Minister refuses to resign or to call an election. Some have argued that the action to dismiss Whitlam in 1975 by GG John Kerr was premature, because supply had not yet been formally denied although there is little doubt that the Governor-General could have exercised the power once supply had been refused. The contrary argument is that in the circumstances the dismissal was necessary to avoid economic chaos and possibly social unrest, since the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary Supply bills and the fact that no election could be held before the existing supply would have run out, meant that the Government would have been soon to unable to pay its public servants (including the armed forces) and contractors and was preparing nevertheless to continue to govern.

Three of the reserve powers were exercised together in 1909 when, after a motion of no-confidence moved against the Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher, had been carried, the Governor-General refused to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives, dismissed Andrew Fisher and commissioned Alfred Deakin as Prime Minister.

How did the GG protect the institute of government when Morrison was pissing convention up against the wall?

 

[Cuzz09]

So definitely Thurs sep 22 pub hol?

I'm requesting the Fri off stuff it

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Roylion]

How did the GG protect the institute of government when Morrison was pissing convention up against the wall?

I've gone through the role and responsibilities of the Governor General in relation to Scott Morrison's actions already. I'm not going to repeat it. Go back and read what I said earlier.

 

[Gough]

I've gone through the role and responsibilities of the Governor General in relation to Scott Morrison's actions already. I'm not going to repeat it. Go back and read what I said earlier.

In your view was Hurley carrying out his responsibilities properly when Morrison did what he did?

 

[Roylion]

In your view was Hurley carrying out his responsibilities properly when Morrison did what he did?

Go back and read what I said.

 

[Gough]

Go back and read what I said.

I'm asking your opinion, you must have one re Hurley.

 

[Roylion]

I'm asking your opinion, you must have one re Hurley.

I've given my opinion.

 

[JennyTaylor]

NRLW player under investigation over post about Queen's death

As sports league around the world have honoured the Queen, some responses have sparked some serious controversy. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

Well doesnt she seem to be a lovely young woman...

 

[fishardansin]

 

[fishardansin]

Yes - but it is not Ireland. Just as the provinces of Northern Ireland are not Ireland.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are 2 distinct parts of Ireland.

I would have thought a citizen of the Republic of Ireland would know that.

And at least a cursory understanding of the recent history of Ireland including the partition of Ireland into 2 separate parts by the British Government in 1920 that made it so.

That's right. There is The Republic of Ireland and Occupied Ireland.

 

[Number37]

That's correct. Where did I say they were not?



Certainly a prerogative of the Crown may be abrogated, curtailed or displaced by a statute that directly regulates the same subject matter.

For example the prerogative cannot be exercised to deprive a person of liberty or interfere with their private property, create an offence, raise taxes, or compel persons to give evidence or produce documents in relation to a government inquiry b ecause there are statutes that directly deal with these matters. Nor can the prerogative be exercised to change statutes or the common law.

Yes? And? What's your point?



Ironic. I had to teach you what the Magna Carta actually was last time we had this 'discussion'.



Henry VIII was an absolute monarch. Do you understand the difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy? The monarch in England used to have much more power under a feudal system and gradually had those powers stripped away via a series of royal charters, bills and other such legislation.

For example in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the 'Declaration of Right' was issued in February 1689 and the subsequent issuing of the Bill of Rights in 1689 stripped away a number of the powers of the monarch

The 'Declaration of Right' had thirteen clauses limiting the powers of the monarch. Some of the more important ones are as follows:

• The power of suspending and executing laws rests in the hands of Parliament.
• The Crown does not have the legal authority to dispense or execute laws.
• The imposition of any taxes by the Crown without the permission of Parliament is illegal.
• A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal.
• Members of Parliament have freedom of speech and their proceedings should not be questioned in any place outside of Parliament.
• Parliament should be held frequently to uphold the laws.

This was essentially the end of absolute monarchy with the most important the vesting of control of the military in Parliament, not the monarch. This meant the monarch could not impose his or her will on the people by force. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes or make royal appointments.

The 'Declaration of Right' was written into the English Bill of Rights which is part of the British constitution.

The coronation oath reflected the changes. Mary II and her husband William III swore to govern according to "the statutes in Parliament agreed on" instead of by "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England".

Even the Royal succession was to be decided by Parliament as the representatives of the people.

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession from this idea that it was derived from 'God' (you know - the Divine Right of Kings") and establishing the idea of a "contract" between ruler and people (as per John Locke for example). This idea was re-inforced later by the 1701 Act of Settlement which placed further restrictions on the activities of the monarch. For example, the monarch was not allowed to leave the United Kingdom without the consent of parliament, although this was later repealed by a further Act of Parliament. However it still demonstrates very well that it was Parliament that held the power now and not the monarch who was limiting to exercising reserve powers.

Since 1689 Parliament's power has steadily increased, while that of the monarch has steadily declined.





Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as witholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government. The people have the ultimate say. A referendum can remove the monarchy.

It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising the reserve powers and will therefore act mostly by convention. The current system has a number of checks and balances.



In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment called the Civil List.

The arrangement of George III has been renewed ever since by subsequent monarchs at the start of every reign – Queen Elizabeth II did this upon ascending the throne in 1952 and Charles did it yesterday. The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign’s private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown".

The Sovereign Grant currently provides the source of funding for The Palace based on 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate. Royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are held in trust by the monarch, to which the monarch is expected to use the Sovereign Grant to maintain these palaces.

For the 100th time.
The Queen or King can reverse any of their or their predecessors proclamations. It is their prerogative to do so.
They can also refuse to sign into law anything that a parliament passes. Every single piece of legislation needs to be signed into law by the Queen or her rep.
There isn't anything that anyone can do about it because it would comply with every Constitution ...which does not/can not completely abrogate a Monarch's Monarchical powers. Even if a Constitution purported to abrogate a Monarch's powers it wouldn't work because a Monarch could just dream up new powers, as is their PREROGATIVE.
You keep banging on about conventions. They don't mean shit if someone chooses to ignore that convention. Conventions do not have the force of law, they are nothing more than a gentleman's agreement, unenforceable by the courts.

The whole Westminster system of govt is held together by a handbook of conventions. That's all well and good until somebody throws the handbook out the window. Then what? I've asked you this question numerous times and you keep answering with "the handbook says"...
FYI, there's nothing in the handbook that deals with the handbook being thrown out the window.

 

[Toump Ass]

My wife put it nicely this morning: it's like one of the planets is gone, something that was always there. And I think even Liz Truss put it nicely when she said that Her Majesty gave so much, to so many, for so long. I think she was one of the most highly-respected people in the world, if not the most.

Literally pissed myself laughing at this, no offence.
Can you please tell me what "Lizzie" gave you and your wife, or what she gave to me? Or what she gave anyone really.

 

[Roylion]

For the 100th time.
The Queen or King can reverse any of their or their predecessors proclamations. It is their prerogative to do so.

They can only exercise the reserve powers.

They cannot

• suspend and execute laws. That rests in the hands of Parliament.
• They do not have the authority to dispense or execute laws.
• They do not have the authority to impose taxes without the permission of Parliament

So banging on about Henry VIII and what he did, when England was an absolute monarchy is totally and utterly irrelevant. I still don't know what the point of even making that comment was. Charles III does not have the powers that Charles I or Henry VIII had.

They can also refuse to sign into law anything that a parliament passes. Every single piece of legislation needs to be signed into law by the Queen or her rep.

Yes. Where have I ever said it hasn't? See below.

There isn't anything that anyone can do about it because it would comply with every Constitution ...which does not/can not completely abrogate a Monarch's Monarchical powers.

Why would the monarch or her representative do that? Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as withholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government. The people have the ultimate say. A referendum can remove the monarchy.

It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising the reserve powers and will therefore act mostly by convention. They risk their removal by the people, either by law or by force.

The Govenor-General or monarch acts on the advice of his/her Ministers. These ministers most often enjoy the support of Parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the monarch to withhold assent. Thus royal assent is almost never withheld, even of there is the power to do so.

So what point exactly are you trying to make? Dispensing with the rule of law and anything is possible?

In Australia the Governor-General’s constitutional duties are

• appointing the times for the holding of sessions of Parliament (s. 5);
• proroguing and dissolving Parliament (s. 5);
• issuing writs for general elections of the House (in terms of the Constitution, exercised ‘in Council’) (s. 32);
• issuing writs for by-elections in the absence of the Speaker (in terms of the Constitution, exercised ‘in Council’) (s. 33);
• recommending the appropriation of revenue or money (s. 56);
• dissolving both Houses simultaneously (s. 57);
• convening a joint sitting of both Houses (s. 57);
• assenting to bills, withholding assent or reserving bills for the Queen’s assent (s. 58);
• recommending to the originating House amendments in proposed laws (s. 58); and
• submitting to electors proposed laws to alter the Constitution in cases where the two Houses cannot agree (s. 128).

Sir Paul Hasluck made the following observations in a lecture given during his term as Governor-General:

"The duties of the Governor-General are of various kinds. Some are laid on him by the Constitution, some by the Letters Patent and his Commission. Others are placed on him by Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament. Others come to him by conventions established in past centuries in Great Britain or by practices and customs that have developed in Australia."

So the Governor-General acts on advice, whether he is acting in his own name or as Governor-General-in-Council. He has the responsibility to weigh and evaluate the advice and has the opportunity of discussion with his advisers. He is under no compulsion to accept advice unquestioningly. He has a responsibility for seeing that the system works as required by the law and conventions of the Constitution.

Even if a Constitution purported to abrogate a Monarch's powers it wouldn't work because a Monarch could just dream up new powers, as is their PREROGATIVE.

There is no arbitrary exercise of power by the monarch or the Governor-General by "dreaming up" new reserve powers. Letters patent are a form of "royal decree" but Parliament today tolerates only a very narrow exercise of the royal prerogative by the issuance of letters patent, and such documents are issued with prior informal government approval or even by the government themselves.

Since the reign of James I, English common law courts judges emphatically assert that they possess the right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative. It has been accepted by the Crown that it is emphatically the province of the courts to say what the law is, or means. That includes the "royal prerogative as issued in letters patent (effectively a royal decree that becomes law).

You've argued that according to the High Court....prerogative powers can be abrogated by express words of a statute. So "dreaming up new powers" (whatever they might be) cannot violate the constitution nor can it contradict the express words of a statute already in force.

You keep banging on about conventions. They don't mean s**t if someone chooses to ignore that convention. Conventions do not have the force of law, they are nothing more than a gentleman's agreement, unenforceable by the courts.

But the Constitution and statutes are enforceable by the Courts.

FYI, there's nothing in the handbook that deals with the handbook being thrown out the window.

Then the rule of law is thrown out the window in which case the courts have no power either.

I've already answered this question.

Obstructing responsible goverment by a constitutional monarch arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as witholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government.

The people have the ultimate say. A referendum of the people (by law) can remove the monarchy.

 

[Number37]

They can only exercise the reserve powers.

LOL.

 

[Number37]

Then the rule of law is thrown out the window in which case the courts have no power either.

The rule of law applies to rules of law, conventions are not rules of law, they aren't even rules, they are conventions.
Conventions are not justiciable bro. i.e. you can't go to court over a breach of convention.
Courts have no power here because it would breach the separation of powers doctrine.