Like...
since she can't make any laws, but they still have her sign--what would happen if she disagreed completely and refused to sign it?
2007-09-06 07:23:29 · 8 answers · asked by bec 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
haha you guys just contradicted each other...
any proof?!
2007-09-06 07:31:31 · update #1
yeah, that's what i thought!
thanks guys =)
2007-09-06 07:36:34 · update #2
Parliament will pass another statute abolishing the need for the Queen's signature. Then they'll pass another one abolishing the monarchy.
2007-09-06 07:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The monarch of England could theoretically take more power if he/she wanted it. They have done so in the past, even though if they did so now, it would probably not be to the liking of the politicians in Parliament. However, I don't see why the King or Queen couldn't get the support of the people because the politicians are definitely not highly regarded.
The Queen is still head of state and has the right to refuse to sign laws. However, she doesn't ever use it. Unlike in America, where unitary executive theories are popular among presidents despite being blatantly illegal, such a theory would be perfectly legal in England, which has no Constitution, meaning that everything is at the mercy of Parliament.
Prince Charles, the current heir to the throne of Britain may be far more of a ruler than most recent British monarchs have been. It is believed that he will increase the power of the monarchy and he'd probably have the popular support to do it (since all of England's politicians are equally awful).
2007-09-06 07:40:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having the Queen sign a law is just a courtesy, she has no real power to make laws. I suppose she could refuse to sign a law, but the lawmakers in England would just refuse the courtesy in the future.
2007-09-06 07:33:31 · answer #3 · answered by Jana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I am not entirely versed in the intricacies of the British parliamentary system, I would guess that parliament could still enforce it as a law as they are the lawmaking body. To my understanding the queen is more of a figurehead, not really a power holding chief executive, like the President of the United States.
2007-09-06 07:32:52 · answer #4 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law is still a law. It is just a gesture of respect that they have her sign.
2007-09-06 07:29:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Easily overturned, Not unlike a presidential veto!
2007-09-06 07:34:12 · answer #6 · answered by Wounded Duck 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She is just a figure head.She has no power over laws one way or another.
2007-09-06 07:31:29 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then they wouldn't follow through with it
2007-09-06 07:30:35 · answer #8 · answered by Brian 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋