Twat

The practice of Queen’s consent, on which the Guardian has shone a welcome light in recent days, is a constitutional outrage. It gives an unelected person the opportunity to require changes to draft legislation in order to benefit herself financially, or to exempt herself from laws she does not like, and to do so in secret without any public accountability.

If an MP or peer sought to secretly influence a draft bill to advantage themselves in this way, it would be called corruption. It could lead to a criminal charge.

Every Minister does this as a normal part of the process. Because that’s how the constitution works. Given that it’s the Crown in Parliament…….

13 thoughts on “Twat”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    One of the Queen’s constitutional roles is to advise and warn. By all accounts she does it quite well.

    Good for her. It is a dirty job but someone has to do it. I can’t imagine that any of her advise is particularly bad. She is by far and away the best part of the British constitution

  2. The longest-running reality show with the highest ratings. Look on the royal family as an entertainment troupe. They do a good job. I mean, if they had sung at the Superbowl, imagine the viewership. It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it.

  3. She is by far and away the best part of the British constitution

    She isn’t part of the constitution – the monarch is.

    Her Maj is 94. In a short time we’ll have another monarch. His advice is almost certain to be bad.

  4. She should decree the line of succession is to Anne not Jug Ears. A last well-deserved comeuppance for the poxy eco-freak.

  5. She should decree the line of succession is to Anne not Jug Ears

    King Mike in a few more years would please the Shed.

  6. His advice is almost certain to be bad
    If Charlie’s great uncle was forced to quit the job because he wanted to marry a divorcee, why does he think he’s entitled to the gig being not only already married to a divorcee but divorced himself.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Worstall February 11, 2021 at 1:09 pm – “He’s not divorced now – he’s a widower.”

    She is not. And that is the point. Legal nookie requires two parties both unattached to other people.

    Unless Charles has some sort of special order for the SAS, or he ordered the former Black Rod to Afghanistan to clear land mines or something…

  8. You lot are lucky someone gets to read the legislation. Here you have to pass it to find out what’s in it.

  9. It gives an unelected person the opportunity to require changes to draft legislation in order to benefit herself financially, or to exempt herself from laws she does not like,

    I mean, it is a *monarchy* after all . . .

  10. @ SMFS and asiaseen
    Divorce is tolerated by the Church of England: its founder (as a secular institution that is, not Simeon Peter who is its foundation stone) was twice divorced. The CoE does not *approve* of divorce, but royal divorces repeatedly crop up in history lessons.

  11. @ Mr Ecks
    Since Charles is older than Anne the recent ruling that gender is ignored when applying the rule of primogeniture would make no difference.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    john77 February 11, 2021 at 7:16 pm – “Divorce is tolerated by the Church of England”

    It is now. Up to a point.

    “its founder (as a secular institution that is, not Simeon Peter who is its foundation stone) was twice divorced.”

    It is interesting to see such Papist propaganda. I did not know you were a left footer. Although it is hard to reconcile that with the claim Peter is the founder of the CoE. The Protestant case for Henry is that he did not get divorced. He sought, and then awarded himself, an annulment. The Catholic case is that he was divorced.

    There is a difference.

    “The CoE does not *approve* of divorce, but royal divorces repeatedly crop up in history lessons.”

    Does it now? Who precisely?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *