|
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... |
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.