Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in

Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin – one of those behind the amendment calling for MPs to take control of the parliamentary agenda on Wednesday – says ministers’ objection to the amendment is “ostensibly” simply “constitutional”.

He asks David Lidington whether the government intends to replicate “exactly” the process set out in the amendment in its own plan for a debate on alternative options.

“I can’t give a commitment immediately for that level of detail,” says Mr Lidington in reply.

“It may be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State [Stephen Barclay] will be able to respond to that point in greater detail in his wind-up speech,” he adds.

(From BBC Live https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409 )
as transparent as good clean air…….

The Government wants to defeat Letwin’s amendment by saying it will do that anyway to stack the field removing the choices they refuse to discuss.

So indicative votes on
May’s Deal V1
May’s Deal V2
May’s Deal V3
Rather than the full suite of options

So indicative votes on
May’s Deal V1
May’s Deal V2
May’s Deal V3
Rather than the full suite of options

You really think that will fly given there’s no change to the WA?

That would be sarcasm but there is a reason they want to be in charge of chosing them not the rest of parliament, it’s already been suggested that any kind of remain option would not be presented by the government. Given they have already been held in contempt of parliament and have set out to frustrate parliament I don’t expect them to do anything useful. That is why it’s important that amendment goes through

Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in

Quite a lot

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

It’s hard to tell sarcasm from satire from reality these day’s, nevermind brexit fatigue, I think I’ve got amendment fatigue lol!

Not what the article says though, it says they have been asked for consent and only lists one that was not given

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

It does not say either way if they monarchy had intervened or just given approval.

So pressure on the DUP

A source close to Jacob Rees-Mogg confirms he is ready to back May’s deal conditional on DUP support.

He believes Brexit is in danger and he now thinks the deal is the least bad option. Says if the DUP can support it then he can hold his nose and vote for it.

— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) March 25, 2019

Do you feel lucky? Well Do you?

Exactly how long after we leave will we be great again? I intend to hassle Grayling til he’s in his grave if there’s even a hint of things not being great.

I thought the DUP had totes fallen out with the tories as the WA would be treating NI differently to the UK, unless there’s a UK wide customs agreement.

Have they had another bung and changed thier tune?

they stated quite clearly after the referendum that they would not negotiate or discuss anything until Article 50 had been triggered

They didn’t have to. It’s all written down… the rules regarding the Single Market etc… many Brits helped write them… we just had to listen to them before choosing our preferred path. Instead we sacked them, or ignored them, and pressed on before making any real decisions beyond the nonsense of “keeping all the benefits”…

I’d say it’s more posturing from JRM in case it all falls apart – it wouldn’t have mattered how he voted when the DUP wont vote for it. “I tried honest I tried – peasants”

So if England are not guaranteed to the World Cup are they going to stay home ?

Watching Parliament… now adding James Cartlidge to the growing list of sensible politicians. There really are a lot of MPs with an honest approach to why people voted, and what they are actually getting. Yes, many are Conservative. Not quoted in the press very often though. Definitely not appearing on the front page of the Telegraph with a new haircut, that’s for sure. I’ve never heard of him before… yet all the headbangers are unavoidable.

Guys – debate with my fundamentalist brexiteer cousin over the proposed US / UK trade deal – linked her to some news stories on it and the US government paper on it but some analysis of what it actually means to us would be good. I think she might be starting to crack. Any good stuff to send her?

By the time the drug companies equalise the price in the right direction and we get a privatised NHS

Also with any trade deal it’s not the headline numbers or cherry picked ones that make it good or bad for a country. It’s about where it positions out key markets, helps our companies and core industries along with how it defends the needs of key areas like health, agriculture and defence.

Yes, many are Conservative

The media aren’t interested in rational, well-thoughtout positions. Plenty of right of centre old-fashioned one-nation pro-EU Tories in parliament. Some of them even have a grasp of economics.

Performance artists are running the world.

Mike

The bill became Bill 35 in the 1998/1999 Parliamentary session, and was initially scheduled for second reading on 16 April 1999. As a bill modifying the monarch’s prerogative powers, Queen’s Consent was required before it could be debated in Parliament. The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government[4], refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated. The second reading was initially postponed from 16 April until 23 July 1999.[5][6] Due to the Crown’s continuing refusal to signify its consent to the Bill being debated, it could not receive its second reading on 23 July 1999. In the absence of a request for a further postponement, the Bill was automatically dropped before it obtained its second reading.[7][8][9]

Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1110276794823905280/photo/1

?? Does that work??

Basically Tories Whipping No to all Amendments, then Aye if all fail then no if it doesnt

Tom…

Did you read my post?
you claimed the Queen and PoW had intervened lots of times – that article doesn’t say that.

I said yes at one point they had and it turns out that was at the request of the actual government

The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government[4], refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated.

In which I would think it was about the time parliament was trying to stop Blair going to war.

So there is one case on record where there was shown to be consent refused. It’s not lots is it

That’s a bit of a superficial appraisal of the article.

Just because only one was pulled doesn’t mean to say that the spectre of royal approval doesn’t effect the other bills in a more indirect or softer fashion – the fact that they have to get it past the Royals could influence decision making in of itself. I’m sure government ministers have a good idea of what will actually get past them before they even bother trying.

In which I would think it was about the time parliament was trying to stop Blair going to war.

Was he gearing up for it in 1999?

It’s a distillation of the fact, after that you are in speculation. There is 1 documented case of any interference and it was at the request of the government. It’s also said that in other cases they actually had to technically ask so it’s not conclusive either way.

DUP spitting dummies about government seeking to protect NI from a no deal Brexit. Going to get much messier… fast…

It’s a distillation of the fact, after that you are in speculation. There is 1 documented case of any interference and it was at the request of the government. It’s also said that in other cases they actually had to technically ask so it’s not conclusive either way.

The fact that government fought hard not to release what little it actually did makes them suspect.

But even the one instance of known interference makes a mockery of “taking back” democratic control from the unelected EU boooorocratzs? Doesn’t it? “At the request of government” doesn’t make it any less of a mockery of democracy either, considering the huge amount of public opposition there was to the Iraq war.

Personally IDGAF but run all you like with it, just read what you are linking to and see if it actually proves what you are saying rather than speculates about it. Or just post some pics of people with Jimmy Saville

Well, if you really want to argue semantics Mike – technically the monarchy have “stepped in” every time they are asked to contribute to the legislative process. Just because the majority of those times ended with an outcome that you appear to deem acceptable, doesn’t make that any less so.

I’m not arguing semantics, that is what you are doing to try and prove something there are no available facts to do.
If there were documented cases apart from the one under advice from the government then that would be different.
You are trying to then argue that a procedural ask is equivalent to interference, even if it results in a simple procedural agree.

It’s like that “Does anyone know of any lawful impediment” bit of a wedding

procedural ask is equivalent to interference, even if it results in a simple procedural agree.

The fact that one was knocked back, doesn’t make it the fluffy quaint kind “procedural” does it? It means that there is a very real threat there that legislation can be halted, in which case – the monarchy are “stepping in”, every single time they are asked to sign off on legislature.

To think that we laugh at Americans.

Guys – debate with my fundamentalist brexiteer cousin over the proposed US / UK trade deal – linked her to some news stories on it and the US government paper on it but some analysis of what it actually means to us would be good. I think she might be starting to crack. Any good stuff to send her?

Once the UK is decimated, we’ll all be able to get smaked up on state sponsored heroin rather than health care.

So at least we’ll be so high we won’t care… Is that a plus?

in which case – the monarchy are “stepping in”, every single time they are asked to do so.

I hope you don’t apply that logic at work.

I do – asking for QA sign off is “procedural” – 95 times out of a hundred people have done their jobs properly and I sign – doesn’t mean that it’s a fluffy joke though. Don’t tell me, R&D per chance?

Nope in this case you have decided a result, checked the evidence that doesn’t fit and then tried to flip meanings and intent to make it fit the result you picked up front…..

anyway votes looming

Nope in this case you have decided a result, checked the evidence that doesn’t fit and then tried to flip meanings and intent to make it fit the result you picked up front…..
anyway votes looming

Nahhh, you’re just reading too much into three words and a link and then projecting your thoughts onto me.

raybanwomble

Member

Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in

Quite a lot

To quote….
Or more precisely once on record only at the request of the government. What did you mean by your three words? Once? Twice? Three times a lady?

You still don’t like my definition of “stepping in” then do you? Is it only stepping in if it’s bad? Put down the cocaine dude.

More your counting……

Well said Jenny Chapman, this is the key constitutional question how long can the government ignore Parliament.

Didn’t the Queen choose/invite Macmillan to be primeminister after Eden resigned,after consultation with Churhcill?