[yellowapple]

The House of Lords kinda throws a wrench in calling the UK a republic, IMO. I know they're technically representatives (of... someone), but the Life Peers within the Lords Temporal are Crown-appointed ("on the advice of" the PM, which sounds like Her Majesty can tell the PM to bugger off and ignore that advice, but maybe there are specific restrictions there that I ain't aware of on account of not being British), which to me sounds like monarchy with extra steps.

[anoncake]

The UK has a monarch. That means it's a monarchy without any extra steps and thus not a republic. I didn't call the UK republic, I pointed out that having representatives does not require a republic.

The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.

[matthewheath]

> The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK

Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).

[Gaelan]

In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that if she tried to exercise any power the monarchy would be abolished very shortly.

[twic]

I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations.

Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void.

This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered.

So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory.

If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

[matthewheath]

It's one of her reserve powers and exercise of her powers is non-judiciable (cannot be reviewed by a court); only the advice given to her can.

If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.

[underwater]

You could argue that there is a difference between practical and theoretical power, but all laws are imaginary and exist only in our minds.

[magduf]

With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.

[anoncake]

In the short term, maybe. In the long term, the monarchs lost their power for a reason.

[sbmassey]

Imagine the chaos if she did take over and made a decision on Brexit one way or the other, though. Better to let the politicians take the heat.