What happens if the British monarch is advised to withhold royal assent?

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,811
Las Vegas, NV USA
I ask this as a constitutional question. In 1914 George V was pressured to withhold consent by the Tories who were out of power in a closely divided Parliament. His conservative views were well known and he considered it but finally gave consent. Recently the prospect of a "revolt" by a backbenchers raised the possibility of the Cabinet advising the Queen to withhold consent a to a bill that might pass by the backbenchers' vote alone. Does she take the advice? People can have opinions but it seems this is not a settled question.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
5,098
Dispargum
Such a situation indicates a serious problem in the ruling party. There are other mechanisms to address the problem. This might be a good time for the opposition to call for a vote of no confidence. Similarly, it could be handled within the party similar to the way the Conservative Party deposed Margaret Thatcher and replaced her with John Major.
 
Jun 2015
1,333
Scotland
Well maybe not right away. o_O It seems to me she is bound to take the advice of her ministers.
Instant is a bit harsh but if the Monarchy were seen to be undermining the primacy of the national elected assembly in favour of a government without its support it would remove any remaining credibility it has.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,811
Las Vegas, NV USA
Such a situation indicates a serious problem in the ruling party. There are other mechanisms to address the problem. This might be a good time for the opposition to call for a vote of no confidence. Similarly, it could be handled within the party similar to the way the Conservative Party deposed Margaret Thatcher and replaced her with John Major.
But how can you get a vote of no confidence if the majority of MPs support the bill?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,811
Las Vegas, NV USA
Instant is a bit harsh but if the Monarchy were seen to be undermining the primacy of the national elected assembly in favour of a government without its support it would remove any remaining credibility it has.
Would it be any different with an apolitical elected President? The PM is still in the same position. Moreover he could still have the support of the majority of his party but not of all MPs.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
36,316
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The government could simply call a general election, if it's at the point where it's lost control of its own bank benches, assuming it is no longer bound by the Fixed Term Parliament Act, which will probably be repealed.
 
Jun 2015
1,333
Scotland
Would it be any different with an apolitical elected President? The PM is still in the same position. Moreover he could still have the support of the majority of his party but not of all PMs.
An elected president would at least have some credibility. The ability of the elected assembly to overrule or remove the executive is crucial in a democracy. If it cant do so it's not a proper functioning democracy, a bit like Iran or Russia.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,811
Las Vegas, NV USA
An elected president would at least have some credibility. The ability of the elected assembly to overrule or remove the executive is crucial in a democracy. If it cant do so it's not a proper functioning democracy, a bit like Iran or Russia.
The president in a Westminster system its no different than the monarch . He not govern or rule. He would be obliged to take the advise of the PM. The only difference is that he is elected and we are asking an elected official to be "apolitical".