[clubm8]

>The Leave voters will all call you undemocratic. That sentiment imposes a definite cost on you as well.

This is the same country that has the queen give "consent" for all legislation, correct?

What exactly is the point of the monarchy if they won't step in during this serious issue to act as the "adult in the room"?

[Waterluvian]

That's been symbolic for a long time. It would be a constitutional crisis if Her Majesty started getting involved.

[presscast]

I'm surprised you use the term "constitutional crisis" here. Isn't the UK one of those rare countries without a constitution?

[lightbyte]

Constitutional crisis is an appropriate term for the UK, it has happened twice before:

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis#United_K...

[M2Ys4U]

The UK does have a constitution.

It's just not all written down (lots of things work on 'convention'), and the bits that are written down aren't all written down in one document.

[presscast]

Ah ok, that's definitely an important distinction.

Practical question: how does one determine whether an action is unconstitutional? How does one refer to "case history" (or whatever) if it's not written down?

[Waterluvian]

That's a part of the "crisis". In Canada there's also many unwritten conventions. Its just been so that nobody's forced the testing of these, for lack of a better term, "gentleman's agreements".

For example, in Canada the dissolution of Parliament (aka. triggering an election) occurs because the Prime Minister asks the Governor General (who is basically a proxy for the Queen of Canada) to issue a proclamation stating as much.

So does that mean the Prime Minister could simply never do that, causing their party to form the official government indefinitely?

Well... Maybe. Nothing says they can't do that. It's just that no PM has ever thought of trying it.

It must sound loosey goosey and kind of dangerous, but it seems to work fine.

Some rules aren't written unless some jerk makes us write them down.

[foldr]

It is all written down (in innumerable textbooks, court judgments, etc. etc.), just not in a single official document titled "The Constitution of the United Kingdom".

Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)

[presscast]

>Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :)

I appreciate the joke (really!), but that's not what's perplexing, here. Even if there are disagreements in (e.g.) US constitutional matters, the reference documents and their order of succession is well-known.

Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?

I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/

[Waterluvian]

Fair. I'm from Canada and am borrowing what I know about our system and what I know about theirs.

We would call it that. Hmm. What do you call it in the UK? A crisis caused by the challenge of technically legal but completely unfounded government/monarchy actions.

[presscast]

Right, this doesn't detract from your original point at all. I was just wondering if there was some technicality I was missing.

[KaiserPro]

Because it would be the last official act they would do.

It would cause a huge problem, as they have to sign off every law, and every large cheque. It would require an actual real constitution, which would be impossible give the current damp paper bags we have in parliament.

[bilbo0s]

I guess I'm not familiar enough with the monarchical aspect of their government to know how (if?) that would go down?

But you make a good point. Why can't their queen or whatever just say no we're not leaving? I'm not sure? I'm from the US. We don't have the whole monarchy thing going on.

[mattmanser]

Because the position (and power) is symbolic and the centuries old understanding is that the ruling monarch will never exercise it. Should they do so, especially in opposition to a full referendum of all things, it would spell the end of the monarchy.

The last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill

[Latteland]

What if the king or queen was a crazy bastard hell bent or just too stupid to do anything but destroy your normal democratic behaviors and support authoritarian practices? I think you've been lucky up to now, at least for the recent 100 years.

[clubm8]

She doesn't have to force them not to leave.

Merely giving a televised speech that she respects the will of the people, but hopes they will take into consideration here years of experience and view it will be dreadfully harmful would have probably nudged a no. I know she normally does not comment on politics, but I also thought it's not out of the realm of possibility she'd pull a Silent Bob and speak up briefly when it is deeply needed.

Again I ask: what is the point of the monarchy, if they do not step in as some sort of check on the legislative branch when things go off the rails?

[dalore]

The Queen (or let's say monarchy) is a check on parliamentary powers. They are like the USA president. It's not better or worse, it's just a different way of keeping powers in check. She has the power to dissolve the government and not pass those laws but the people would be up in arms. But if the politicians get locked she/they can fix it. Very rarely happens but it does (see Australia in the 1970s). The commonwealth countries are similar but instead of the Queen they have a governor general which is her representative.

If she went and dissolved parliament now, during the Brexit negotiations everyone would rightly say she is interfering with democratic process.

[grovehaw]

Unlike the US which painstakingly separated powers into different branches of government, the UK habit of governance is to fuse powers together.

This gives rise to the concept of the King or Queen in Parliament. That is to say absolute authority resides with the Monarch but is delegated to his/her parliament. Parliament then generates legislation to which the Sovereign assents. The Royal Assent has not happened in person since 1854.

[Someguywhatever]

Why is the democratic decision to leave not an "adult" decision?

To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit IMO. I think that they will drag it out so long that they say the mandate of the referendum has expired, and then re-rerun the referendum. They will rinse and repeat until they get the result they want.

As an example Ireland voted not to join the EU the first time they did a referendum, they simply had more referendums until they got a yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ire...

[dalore]

Well that's what you're meant to do with referendums. You have them to judge the peoples intent. And people's intents change over time and so you keep having them. Not to keep having them until you have the answer you want. You're making it a winner vs loser but it's not.

All the brixteers saying to not have another referendum and that's it's not democratic is a cognitive dissonance. It's saying it's not the will of the people to ask the people if they want.

Ireland as you said kept voting until they joined the referendum. So initially they didn't want to join, but then over time they did. Nothing is stopping them from having another referendum to leave the EU (like the UK did). And if the sentiment of the people show they do they, they will.

If you go on about the will of the people, then having another referendum makes more sense. 2 years ago was a long time, and peoples opinion changes. That referendum 2 years ago was given as a NON-BINDING referendum, to see what people thought about and if they should actually look at is a valid option. People said yes. So now we've looked at it, we've seen what deals we can get and we know a bit more of what is involved (and the people managing it). So now would be a good idea to have a binding referendum on which deal, or even to remain. This would be the will of the people.

It's like buying house, you make an offer first and then you get a survey. If the survey says something is bad that you missed, would you still buy the house at the same price?

If we have another referendum and people think the deals suck we would rather remain, that is literally the will of the people. If really feels like the argument to not have another vote is that you're afraid it might go the other way (since it was so close anyway). But you shouldn't be. If we have another vote and we remain, the brexit people can continue the discussion and convince us that it would be better over time. Then when we have enough national support, have another referendum. You're meant to keep having referendum to judge peoples intent. For something as major as leaving the EU we shouldn't be rushing it and jumping the gun with no plan in place. We can stay, make our plans, present these plans to the people, get them to see it's the right move. Not jump in and saying 50% of people want to leave so we must leave, that creates a big wedge down the country of leave vs remain and no one gets along.

A big change should come around slowly. This isn't a revolution.

[Paianni]

That article concerns the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland was already an EU member.

[d4rti]

And indeed, Ireland’s concerns were addressed between the two referenda.

One of these was the now defunct concern around abortion.