Darrell Goodliffe

Opinion: Royal Prerogative must go

By | Tue 19th August 2008 - 4:31 pm

Well, Norman Baker’s proposals to scrap the Oath of Allegiance certainly caused a stir on Liberal Democrat Voice, didn’t they? Jennie Rigg and others were certainly most riled by the ‘crawling out of the woodwork’ of ‘little republicans’.  She feels that the role of the monarchy in a constitutional monarchy state is ‘largely symbolic’. It is thus perhaps not surprising that she is vexed by the importance attached to the issue of a head of state she sees as largely symbolic. However, thankfully others do not share her view and as the Daily Mail has recently reported, the oath may very well face a legal challenge:

“Republic is planning a legal challenge, saying the current rules discriminate against Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs and members of other religions who object to swearing allegiance to the head of the Church of England.”

So, why does everybody get so worked up about who cuts the ribbons on various hospitals,  stations and an assortment of other buildings? Everything starts at the beginning, and we all accept that the monarch is the head of state, so the republican challenge is really not just to the monarchy itself but to the entire form of the constitutional monarchy state.  During the discussion I frequently raised the question of the powers held under Royal Prerogative. Some of these powers are formally held by the monarch but are exercised by the executive in its name. So, when Parliament was marginalised by Tony Blair in his rush to war in Iraq it was a result of the existence of Royal Prerogative because the declaration of war is a power held to the monarch which of course can then be wielded by the executive.

Powers that are still held by the monarch under Royal Prerogative include

  • The appointment and dismissal of ministers
  • The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections
  • declaration of war;
  • The declaration of an emergency;
  • The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
  • The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England

So, we can already see why fixed-term Parliaments will never happen under the current form of state. It is a small wonder that the current government hasn’t thought to declare itself in an emergency but more seriously we can easily see the means by which the will of the people could be circumvented. Constitutions are supposed to protect the people against the state but Britain’s current arrangement enshrines the rights of an unelected head of state to live at the taxpayers’ expense, exercise power she has never earned, and of an over mighty executive to trample all over Parliamentary democracy. Also, we can also see the means through which Royal Prerogative undermines civil liberties. Hardly ideal from a liberal and democratic point of view is it?

All of this is to leave aside the question of the House of Lords which builds guaranteed representation for one faith, hereditary peers and political apparatchiks into the legislative process. Needless to say this is the spawn of the constitutional monarchy state too. All of this is a far cry from the 6 O’ Clock News fantasy of a monarch who cuts ribbons and poses in funny hats for touristy photos. Instead what we see is a monarch who sits at the core of what David Cameron might very well call Britain’s broken democracy. Republicanism is not just about removing the monarch it is an integral part of the campaign for a liberal and democratic Britain. Jennie and others may well belittle its significance but in doing so they are dramatically missing the point.

So, what are the alternatives? Well I am against an elected President because with a properly empowered and reformed legislature there is no need for one. Besides I think the best government has the minimal separation between executive and legislative functions. If there must be a ceremonial head of state, something that I am personally unsure there needs to be, then it should arise from the legislature so that leaves either the Prime Minister or a figure elected by the legislative body. Campaigning for a British republic is part of campaigning for consistent democracy. It is totally inconsistent to bemoan the electoral system, the subordination of parliament, the erosion of civil liberties, the lack of fixed-term parliaments and so forth and not follow that through in calling for the complete overhaul of the entire way of governing Britain.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

25 Comments

  • MartinSGill 19th Aug '08 - 5:43pm

    Who the head of state is doesn’t bother me that much, as long as we have a decent written constitution and I quite like the queen.

    Keep the monarchy around, they are good for tourism. Even if monarchy costs a lot, a president will cost nearly as much maybe more when you need to factor in things like the cost of running the elections every so often.

    All executive powers should be stripped from the monarch. As a consequence of that they’ll also be stripped from the executive who’s only entrusted with them. With those powers gone we might finally end up with a proper constitution that outlines just who can do what when how and for how long.

    The biggest threat to the monarchy in my view is Charles and once he ascends to the thrown we might be a republic quicker than anyone thought possible.

  • Sesenco 19th Aug '08 - 9:05pm

    The Royal Prerogative refers to the residual common law powers of the Crown. These are incapable of extension, and are in fact in retreat. A quarter of a century ago, there was no statutory basis for the employment of civil servants or for MI5 and MI6. Not any more. A quarter of a century ago, the Royal Perogative was held not to be susceptible to judicial review. Not any more, so long as the power in question is justiciable.

    All these powers are exercised in practice by Ministers of the Crown, who can be held accountable for how they do exercise them in Parliament. None is exercised personally by the Monarch.

    I think we need to put the remaining prerogative powers on a statutory basis, then take a look at constitutional conventions, which are even more slippery than the Royal Prerogative because they are entirely uncodified.

    The issue of the monarchy is quite separate.

  • Andrew Turvey 19th Aug '08 - 9:46pm

    “So, when Parliament was marginalised by Tony Blair in his rush to war in Iraq”

    You have a strange recollection of what happened! I remember a lengthy, indepth debate, with many impressive and passionate speaches (most particularly from the late Robin Cook) and a series of votes that ended up authorising the invasion.

    Were you out of the country at the time?

  • Hywel Morgan 19th Aug '08 - 10:07pm

    “She is the personification of our nation as her son will be when she passes.”

    Not sure the respect will pass to her son! The Queen is generally well regarded for the way she carries out her duties even by those who don’t think she should hold her position. Charles carries much less respect and socieity now is much less deferential than it was in the days of other Prince’s of Wales who had similar flaws.

    Maybe the editors of LDV can succeed where the Guardian failed and get prosecuted under the Treason Felony Act for allowing this to be published 🙂

  • MartinSGill 19th Aug '08 - 10:17pm

    The queen is a figure head, just as the german president is a figure head. No law in germany is valid until the president signs it, but he has no real power and has to be party neutral, i believe; just as our queen is (and should be).

    Our queen is a head of state with essentially zero executive power (more through modern custom and any actual law from what I understand), which I think is how it should be for the head of state. The prime minister or the chancellor get on with running the country, leaving the president to handle the parades and the ribbon cuttings and troop inspections.

    What Laurence seems to want is a directly elected head of the executive, i.e. a directly elected prime minister. I have no problems with that. We can have both a ceremonial head of state, with basically no real power (as we do now) and still have a government system that allows us to directly elect our PM.

    The majority of power my view though should always though lie with parliament and the president should be elected from the majority party. If it doesn’t if we have an executive that’s split from the legislature and potentially the ruling party, as it is in the US, then we’ll get the same deadlocks and the same infighting and inability to get anything done.

  • Sesenco 19th Aug '08 - 11:00pm

    Chris Smith is an authoritarian conservative who seeks to preserve ancient hierarchies in the modern world which he (presumably) considers have been imposed upon us by God. He is entitled to his views.

    Where he errs is in believing that (1) the Royal Prerogative actually has anything to do with the Monarch (it doesn’t – it is a device to enable Ministers to bypass Parliament), (2) the Queen spends her day signing bills (she doesn’t – a commissioner does it as a matter of routine – the Queen has never refused the Royal Assent and could not do and stay on the throne) and (3) the Queen is the “embodiment of the nation” when the institution of the monarchy was imposed on this country by French settlers.

    Authoritarian conservatives such as Chris Smith are clearly happy to be feudal serfs. Liberals aspire to be free citizens.

    BTW, the UK armed forces don’t actually defend Britain these days. They further the interests of the US military-industrial-petrochemical complex; which is what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment.

  • Oranjepan 20th Aug '08 - 12:38pm

    I agree that ceremonial duty is boring, but so is due process and there’s no way I’d want to get rid of that.

    I think it is important for any symbolic figure to be a unifying figure – which the crown has been in times of national crisis – because when it has been a divisive, partisan figure it has brought about a constitutional crisis.

    But I’d like to our figurehead to be able to show a lead, even when remaining silent on issues. Personally I’d like the monarch to attend sessions of Parliament in a non-statutory capacity and sit-in on debates in the House of Lords – even if he/she is precluded from voting on the matter it would show concern and involvement on matters of importance to the people.

    FWIW I’d vote to keep our monarch in order to retain and continue our historic legacy of reforming the institution, not on any abstract academic grounds.

    I also think the fixed-term parliament campaign is misguidedly opportunistic, because it means we only get the chance to hold a government to account once every term, rather than enabling parliament to hold the government to account on a continuous daily basis.

    Reform is a continuous process, not an event. So however impatient or frustrated we might get about the weaknesses of the current system we shouldn’t let it cloud our judgement and turn us into reactionaries and revolutionaries.

  • Richy Mac 20th Aug '08 - 3:04pm

    I see no reason to remove the Queen. Most of the Commonwealth countries retain the Queen but have a written constitution with fixed parliaments etc. There is an argument concerning residual powers of the monarch, but she is also a check and balance on the constitution just in case you have mad men in parliament, so certain emergency powers as guardian of the constitution e.g. the ability to veto bills (although this could be modified to only relate to the constitution). The problem isn’t that we have a constitutional monarchy, but that it hasn’t been defined within a written legal document. Her role is to advise and warn the prime minister and given her experience that is invaluable. With elected presidents party loyalty comes into play, which the queen does not have.

    Ceremonial presidents are completely pointless. There is no sense of history with them and also they can never be a unifying force because their presence is so temporary, which is the role of the head of state.

    finally, speaking as a lawyer, Republic’s challenge will be futile. it is not the role of the courts to interfere with parliament’s decisions, which is sovereign. You swear alleigance to the Queen in her constitutional role, not in her religious role, which I agree needs to be scrapped.

    I think the lib dems should be focusing on a written constitution not focusing arguments on something that is of little significance anyway.

  • Sesenco 20th Aug '08 - 11:33pm

    Richy Mac wrote:

    “but she is also a check and balance on the constitution just in case you have mad men in parliament”

    But what about mad monarchs? We’ve had our share of them. Anyway, I thought it was for the courts to keep the Executive in check, not the monarch.

    “Her role is to advise and warn the prime minister and given her experience that is invaluable.”

    Eh? Valuable experience of what? Dog breeding? Managing large estates? The first two Georges were incapable of advising the Prime Minister, since they spoke only German.

    “it is not the role of the courts to interfere with parliament’s decisions, which is sovereign.”

    Yes, that’s the stuff we used to hear from Viscount Simonds, but there are cases in the books where the courts have done just that. In R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame, the House of Lords disapplied a provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 – “a naked usurpation of the legislative function”, as Viscount Simonds would have put it.

  • Oranjepan 21st Aug '08 - 9:50am

    Senseco,

    I’d say 56 years in a job gives you some experience and insight into it’s function and practise, even if you don’t value it very highly.

    I agree that we’ve had mad monarchs, but we’ve also had mad politicians and the public has taken odd views during different periods of history – all of which we judge by today’s mood.

    If you pause for a moment of calm reflection I’m sure you can think of different circumstances where constitutional changes of such magnitude have been handled well and handled terribly, so before you restate your conclusion with such force again perhaps you could revise your arguments to ensure they follow their own logic.

  • David Morton 21st Aug '08 - 2:28pm

    This debate will go no where while the current queen is on the throne. She has done to good a job. If you had an election for President tommorow Elizabeth Windsor would romp home on first preferences. ( She’d get mine)

    What is interesting and Laurence hints at is what Happens when she goes. My instinct is Charles will be problematic in all sorts of ways and will provide an interlude between Elizabeth and William who has clearly been touched by Dianas star dust.

    I would make a couple of points.

    1. Adopting the heirarchy of needs approach you would touch the Monarchy untill the unfinished business of 1911 is dealt with. The real danager is that labour have no time left to complete reform and an incomng tory government won’t see it as a priority. Nick Clegg should call for a referendum on a fully elected second chamber to be held on the same day as the next general election. While it make take a few more years to implimentit would end the debate for ever and give enormous moral impetus to those campaigning for reform.

    2. nearly all the problems darrell sets out in is article can be dealt with by a written constition rather than abolition of the Monarchy. See Canada,Australia, New Zealand.

    3. Don’t underestimate the scale of opposition to touching the Monarchy. History seems to be excelerating rather than having ended. people will not let go easierly and perhaps they shouldn’t.

    4. My thinking on this has been deeply influenced by seein our Lord Mayorality operate. For the price of some Gold chains, a limo and an annual cloathing allowance you get a fuly functioning Civic head. Despite the (elected) post holder changing every year people respond amazingly to this civic representitive at almost every kind of function. While this sounds like an anti monarchy arguement ( anyone can do the job) it also makes me realise that lots of people fel an instinctive need for some one to cut ribbons.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Mick Taylor
    @Lawrence Cox. To read your comment one might want to believe that the Triple Lock has ensured pensioners have decent pensions. It hasn't and UK state pensions ...
  • Chloe
    A Blue Labour response recent events in Hampshire. Well worth a read. https://www.paulembery.com/p/for-the-race-obsessed-british-state...
  • theakes
    A new strategy/approach requires a new leader...
  • Kira Collins
    You use the phrase “fiscal federalism” and “financial autonomy” but have not used the phase I had hoped to see that is drawn out of both: fiscal autonom...
  • Peter Martin
    @Iain, "Without financial autonomy, political devolution is incomplete......." The problem, from a macroeconomic perspective, is that full finan...