Head of State and National Symbol

The Monarch is the head of state for the United Kingdom. She may represent the UK in state events both in the UK and outside it. She is also a symbol which stands for the United Kingdom: an easily identifiable, non-political figure whom Britons can point to as a symbol of national unity.

As head of state, the Monarch is, in theory, ‘above’ politics: thus many national institutions such as the judiciary and the army swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch. Their loyalty is said to be to the United Kingdom and the head of state rather than to Parliament, or the government of the day.

Although a great deal of power has been devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the Queen remains their head of state. Royal assent is still required for legislation of the Parliament and Assemblies, and in fact it may be as a result of devolution that the Queen is expected to appear more often in the 4 nations, as she is now the key symbol holding the UK together.

Defender of the Faith

The British Monarch is the head of the Church of England and a member of the Church of Scotland, both of which are by law the official churches of the two respective nations. Archbishops and bishops of both churches are appointed by the Monarch (although in practice by the Prime Minister, and then on advice of the Ecclesiastical Appointments Commission)

Perhaps the most important aspect of this role is that descendants of the Monarch who are Catholic or are married to Catholics cannot succeed to the throne; and the Monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England.

b) Describe the modern functions of the monarchy using the following starting phrases:

1. The most important modern functions of the Monarch are …

2. The term “constitutional Monarch” implies that …

3. As head of state the Monarch…

4. Although a great deal of power has been devolved …

5. Defender of the Faith means that …

TEXT 3 Personal powers of the monarch

In a few special cases it is believed that the monarch can and indeed must exercise personal power. This is a matter of convention, and is highly controversial with little precedent, thus creating an opportunity for unelected persons to influence opinion. There are internal Cabinet Office guidance documents on the matter but the fact that such unpublished sources have any weight at all is a sad reflection on the culture of those who exercise power. The governing principle seems to be that the head of state is the ultimate guardian of the constitution and must intervene where the normal machinery of government has broken down. The occasions on which the power of the monarchy might be exercised are as follows:

1 The appointment of a prime minister. The Queen must appoint the person who can form a government with the support of the House of Commons. This usually means the leader of the majority party as determined by a general election. Nowadays each party elects its leader. In the unlikely event of the electoral process not producing a clear winner the Queen might have to exercise a personal choice. For example, if a general election fails to produce an overall majority the existing prime minister must probably be permitted to attempt to form a government. Failing that, the Queen should summon the leader of the next largest party. If that fails there is disagreement as to what should happen, and in particular as to whether the monarch has any personal discretion. On one view the Queen should attempt to find someone else capable of commanding a majority, but it is not clear whom, if anyone, she should consult for advice. For example, should she consult the outgoing prime minister? If this fails should she dissolve Parliament causing another election? According to another view the Queen should automatically dissolve Parliament. The guiding principle seems to be that she must try to determine the electorate's preference.

2 The dismissal of a government and the dissolution of Parliament. If a government is defeated on a vote of confidence in the House of Commons but refuses to resign or to advise a dissolution the Queen could probably dismiss the government. This has not happened in Britain since 1783, but happened in Australia in 1975. In such a case the Opposition, if it could form a majority, could be placed in office or the Queen could dissolve Parliament, thus putting the case to the people through an election. It has been suggested that the Queen could dismiss a government that violates a basic constitutional principle, for example by proposing legislation to abolish elections. In order to dissolve Parliament the Queen would require a meeting of the Privy Council. It would therefore be convenient as a temporary measure for her to appoint the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister who would then formally advise her in favour of a dissolution.

3 Refusing a dissolution. This possibility arises because of the convention that the prime minister may advise the monarch to dissolve Parliament. This is one of the main sources of the power of the prime minister and means that general elections can be timed for reasons of party advantage. The Queen might refuse a dissolution if the prime minister is acting clearly unconstitutionally, for example if a prime minister whose party lost a general election immediately requested a second dissolution or where a prime minister falls personally foul of his party. Unfortunately there are no clear-cut precedents. It is likely that the Queen could refuse a dissolution only where there is a viable alternative government and a general election would be harmful to the national interest, although it seems difficult for anyone, let alone the Queen, to make such a judgement. A dissolution was not refused in Britain in the last century but one was refused by the Governor-General in Canada in 1926. The Governor-General's decision was later rejected by the electorate.

4 The Queen might refuse a prime ministerial request to appoint peers to the House of Lords where the reason for the request is to flood the Lords with government supporters. The precedents (1832 and 1910-11) suggest that the monarch would have to agree to such a request but only after a general election. This matter is therefore closely connected with the power to dissolve Parliament.

5 The Royal Assent. The monarch has not refused royal assent to legislation since 1709. It appears to be a strong convention that royal assent must always be given. However the Queen might refuse royal assent where the refusal is on the advice of the prime minister, for example in the unlikely event of a private member's bill being approved by Parliament against the wishes of the government. Here two conventions clash. It is submitted that the better view is that she must still give assent because the will of Parliament has a higher constitutional status than that of the executive.

NOTES TO THE TEXT:

Privy Council - A body, headed by the Lord President of the Council. Its functions are mainly formal. There are about 350 Privy Counsellors, who include members of the royal family, all Cabinet ministers, the Speaker and other holders of high non-political office, and persons honoured for public services.

Prerogative - The special power, pre-eminence or privilege which the Queen has, over and above other persons, in right of her Crown and independently of statute and the Courts.

⇐ Предыдущая14151617181920212223Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: