What a sorry state of affairs, when we are reduced to hoping that the Queen of England, a monarch, will prove to be the bulwark of liberty against the encroaching EU superstate.
The Queen is growing more concerned about Tony Blair’s plans to sign a European constitution that she fears could undermine her role as sovereign.
The Telegraph has learnt that Buckingham Palace has asked for documents highlighting the constitutional implications of the EU’s plans to be sent to her advisers.
It is believed that the Palace’s concerns focus on whether the Queen’s supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by article 10 of the draft text.
This states: “The constitution and law adopted by the union’s institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states.”
Many MPs say that this will rob the House of Commons of its ultimate authority to override decisions and laws made by the EU.
I love that “many MPs.” I mean, it isn’t like they are making their interpretation up out of thin air. Isn’t that what the damn thing says in so many words?
So, fill in this American on what, if anything, the Queen can do to toss a spanner in the works. I tend to believe that liberty is preserved when power is dispersed through competing authorities. Does the old girl still have the stuff to make a difference?
*laughing bitterly* ah the irony, that British autocracy would probably be freer now than the “democracy” it now enjoys. You know, ignoring intervening circumstances…the more power parliament had over the monarchy, the smaller the Empire got, and when the Monarch had no power…well, you still have the Fauklands…
Unless she has changed considerably, it’s odds-on that she will work quietly behind the scenes to make her displeasure known, both privately to the PM, and, if necessary, quasi-publicly to the UK at large.
So Robert Clayton Dean of Wisconsin USA is worried about “the encroaching EU superstate”. Let’s compare the federal government of the United States and the EU bureucracy. Which federal government do you think:
a) has the bigger budget
b) has more employees/bureucrats
c) has a bigger impact on its taxpayers (Americans and Western Europeans, respectively)
d) is more supportive of “states rights” (an example: abortion remains legal in Ireland but not in Sweden because that is what the voters want. What about the United States?)
BTW, why do you care about internal European affairs anyway? Are you a Tory in exile or something?
MARCU$
Marcus, you don’t think what happens in Europe affects us in the US? Of course it does.
Turn the question around: why do European care so much about internal workings of the US (from the death penalty, to “tax harmonization”, to presidential races)?
It is because we are too interconnected and rely too much on each other to blithely ignore the other side of the pond.
Marcus Lindroos writes:
“Which federal government do you think:….”
A completely and utterly spurious argument – which perfectly reveals the true intentions of Europhiles.
The USA is a single country. The EU is not.
Though, clearly, that is the intention of Eurocractic quislings.
Marcus, what makes you think that I believe the current US federal/national government isn’t way too big and intrusive? Of course it is.
Direct comparisons between the US federal government and the EU is, at least at this point, a “category error” in any event, as G points out above.
> Marcus, you don’t think what happens in Europe
> affects us in the US? Of course it does.
Oh, I thought Old Europe was “irrelevant”? But you are right of course…we need to do everything we can to support the good sophisticated Americans of NYC, Berkeley, San Francisco, Boston & Washington against the ignorant barbarians of Texas et al..
> The USA is a single country. The EU is not.
The difference seems rather meaningless to me. Since the nations of Western Europe now share (broadly speaking) the same political and economic system, namely, democratic capitali$m (private industry seems to be increasingly interested in intra-European trade so there is more movement of people and goods across the border than there used to be) as well as more than two millenia of common history, is there any good reason why federalism couldn’t work over here as well? After all, the United States and India seem to be quite successful too — and the latter has more cultural and linguistic barriers than we do.
—
Now, as R.C. Dean correctly points out, it might still be wise to give *our* pan-European federal government less power than the U.S. federal government.
> Though, clearly, that is the intention of
> Eurocractic quislings.
Who is going to stop the EU anyway? A bunch of marginalized Little Englander Tories perpetually out of power?
MARCU$
I am curious too.
If she decided to get utterly pig-headed and stubborn, throw caution to the winds, get grumpy.
Could she simply say: “No. ”
And make it stick?
Don’t get me wrong, Marcus – I don’t have any beef with a federalist experiment in Europe in principle.
I have a major problem with the EU as it is currently being constructed, because the developing EU is likely to result in more, not less, of a number of bad things (regulation, bureaucracy, taxation, redistribution of income, infringement on basic freedoms, and, yes, trade barriers against non-EU countries), as well as less, not more, of a number of good things (accountability, liberty, sanity).
In principle, you could design a federated EU that would result in more good things than bad things, but that ain’t what they got now.
The question is not about stopping the EU. Who cares about that? The issue is whether or not any particular nation wants to subjugate it’s own interests to those of unelected bureaucrats.
The wiser nations are those that pause before leaping into the unknown. I would suspect any organization which, as the price of admission, demands total control.
Marcus Lindroos wonders:
“Who is going to stop the EU anyway? A bunch of marginalized Little Englander Tories perpetually out of power?”
With a clear majority of the UK population demonstrating its opposition to the Euro and further EU integration at every conceivable opportunity, I’d suggest you are living in a Euro federalist cloud cuckoo land.
If continental Europe wishes to behave like a pack of lemmings, so be it. But I suspect the pro-EU argument has been lost in the UK.
Hope y’all ain’t just figuring this out. I you adopt EU constitution you no longer exist. D’oh!!
…we need to do everything we can to support the good sophisticated Americans of NYC, Berkeley, San Francisco, Boston & Washington against the ignorant barbarians of Texas et al..
Who is going to stop the EU anyway? A bunch of marginalized Little Englander Tories perpetually out of power?
So I guess you came here to make friends with Americans and Brits, Marcus? You’re off to a great start, and proving your vast EuroPeon superiority.
Am I the only person who finds the dollar sign ironic?
We’re losing the original question, which was—could Her Majesty stop British entry into the EU if she wanted to? Couldn’t she dissolve Parliament, at least?
Oh to litterally dissolve parliament!
PLUS No italian stewdunce taking photos of the horrible thing!
Marcus,
Total taxes in the US, federal, state and local add up to about 30% GDP.
Total taxes in the EU are in the 50% of GDP range.
Now who has bigger government?
The Queen has the power to dissolve parliament, appoint or dismiss HER ministers (as the PM is simply one of her ministers) and to give (and theoretically to withhold) the royal assent to Acts of Parliament.
As she is only supposed to exercise her powers on advice from the Government of the day she may not be able to actually stop it but she could cause a constitutional crisis over it.
If I’m not mistaken, the Queen has to formally assent to all Acts of Parliament, and so presumably could withhold assent to the ratification of the EU constitution if she wanted. However, I suspect that if the Queen actually used her powers to interfere with the House of Commons, support for republicanism in Britain would increase, and she might find herself the ex-sovereign of the European County of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If three-fourths of Britons want a referendum on the constitution (http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031016012810.u9g2h76z), is it possible that the public might be more supportive of the Queen if she decided to intervene on this issue specifically?
Marcus:
Hate to destroy the stereotype that we are ignorant about what goes on in the world and don’t care. Many US citizens are knowledgeable and care about what happens in many parts of the world. Europe being one of them.
I would love to see a vibrant economy in Europe with lots of production and lots of jobs, in the private sector. The reason is because I think a vibrant Europe is beneficial to everyone.
Reading how the EU is structured now and how it will be in the future, I conclude that there will be too much central control to enable a vibrant economy. I see a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.
You have layers of bureaucrats making decisions that impact people’s lives and they are not accountable to the people. Heck, they can’t even be tried for crimes like fraud.
The more people you have involved making decisions the less efficient the system will be. Also, the more expensive it becomes to keep the system going.
” … is there any good reason why federalism couldn’t work over here as well? ”
Certainly. Where to start? The various European nations have long proud histories and cultures. Each country is different enough from the others that you can’t just decree laws and expect everyone will live happily ever after.
The EU Superstate is a grand idea in theory, but not in practice. Already you’ve had France bail twice in terms of France not obeying the law due to financial problems. What is the use of the laws if some countries are made to obey them and some are not?
To believe the EU can become this huge superstate because the US joined all its states together, shows a real lack of understanding of the US. The US states can’t be compared to the sovereign European nations. They also can’t be joined together in the same way. At least, not at this point in time.
I’ve heard that in many respects US states have more independence than member countries of the EU in terms of setting their own policy, and I don’t find that hard to believe.
That is certainly true in some areas, Adam, and puts the lie to calling the perpetually-expanding reach of Brussels, federalism. Federalism is about dispersing power: “ever closer union” is about the creation of a centralized unitary state, not a federal one (which, in practice, already exists).
IIRC, the Monarch can veto acts of Parliament, but if she does they hold an immediate election, and if the PM gets re-elected she has to abdicate.
There is also a little-known constitutional convention that legislation that affects the royal household or the constitutional position of the monarchy requires the royal consent before presentation to parliament not just assent afterwards. I don’t know that consent has ever been refused, or whether it could be in practice, but the Queen does get a formal warning.
Perhaps she just has. Dave J has it correct, I think: the EU is already a federal state, but it is federal in a different way from the US.
Marcus,
How do I go about telling somone who I greatly respect that in my opinion they’re full of it?
Firstly, your website on the Space Program and SSTO projects is one of the finest pieces of work on the web, bar none. I’ve shamelessly borrowed from it on my blog.
Secondly, your words describing the UK Conservative party
are spot-on. The Tory party in the UK is irrelevant, and it’s their own fault.
But when you say
then I’m sorry, you sound as if Jacques Chirac has his hand up your… that you’re a Eurocratic Sock-puppet.
This kind of peculiarly European arrogance to the (former) colonies – be they Brazil, Australia, the USA – is basically racist. You’re no racist ratbag, but please listen to what you’re saying. It’s straight out of the 19th century. Or the Quai D’Orsai. Invective substituting for reason. And although there are plenty on both sides of the debate who are forced to engage in this, lacking intellectual honesty, that behaviour’s beneath you.
I personally am all in favour of a European Federation.I’ve lived in the UK, Holland and Germany – how could I not be? But not the corrupt, bureaucratic nightmare run by a hereditary class of neuveau aristocrats that is the EU at the moment. The European Parliament already interferes in people’s daily lives far more than the Australian Federal Parliament does in any Australian state. But what I want, or what you want, or what Dubya wants is irrelevant. It’s the UK populace that should be consulted.
Otherwise there’ll be a Federation like there was until 1918 – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Poland, Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus were all “Federated” then, weren’t they?
Alan,
That’s why I call it the EUSSR!
Rob.
I wonder if Tony B has ever read the oath that the Army take on entry? Might give him pause for thought …
“I SOLEMNLY, SINCERELY AND TRULY DECLARE AND AFFIRM THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND THAT I WILL AS IN DUTY BOUND HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY DEFEND HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS IN PERSON, CROWN AND DIGNITY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES AND WILL OBSERVE AND OBEY ALL ORDERS OF HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND OF THE GENERALS AND OFFICERS SET OVER ME”
There’s alot of focus on the role the Queen might play in forcing a referendum on the abomination that is the proposed EU Constitution.
What about Parliament? Parliament cannot bind its successors. Can Blair sign the thing without Parliamentary approval? Is it even within the authority of Parliament to (in effect) dissolve the UK?
Any constitutional lawyers out there?
Symbolically, I think it does make a difference that the Queen, who is greatly respected despite the best efforts of the anti-monarchists, is concerned about the implications of the EU Constitution. Her being involved in this debate will make a difference to public opinion. That has to be a good thing.
Marcus, since when does any contributor to this fine blog have to confine his or her postings to subjects that originate in his/her country? If I want to write about, say, the wider implications of the California recall, I will. If Robert wants to write about the EU, great. We don’t need your permission, thanks very much. In fact, the idea that it is somehow impertinent for Americans to take an interest in the EU perfectly sums up the arrogance and blinkered mindset of the eurofanatics. Nuts to the lot of em.
I have to run to teach a class shortly, but as a first pass at a response to Marcus –
Some of my family and my husband’s family lived and still live as citizens of European countries within living memory. Others of my ancestors were in north America before the 1730s and have been US citizens since the beginning of this country. My small Pennsylvania town included people whose roots go back to, and in many cases who were born, in more than a dozen countries in Europe and several countries in Asia. So I have some experience in the politics of governing across diverse communities.
One difference between US states and European countries is that not one of the states had as its primary identity an historical ethnic, linguistic, legal or religious community. Therefore, when the first attempt at loosely coupled federation of states (Articles of Confederation) proved unwieldly, the discussion that led to the Constitution was primarily about practical issues.
However, one factor was decided from the start. British common law, and not the Napoleonic Code, would form the basis of our legal system.
And that made ALL the difference here. It shaped the relative power and sphere of states vs. the federal government and it limited the ability of the federal government to intrude on certain private and community decisions.
The EU follows in many ways the French model of state control and state intrusion. Y’all are welcome to that if that’s what you want, but I wonder just how comfortable the British will be in that system?
Well, rkb, your sentiments are in the right place, but that’s not quite correct: there was no debate about substituting the civil law of the Continent for the common law. Every one of the original 13 states was a common-law jurisdiction and it was simply presumed that it would stay that way. References to the Napelonic Code re: the Constitutional convention are anachronistic, since they couldn’t debate something in 1787 that wasn’t adopted until 1808. Codification is now an almost universal feature of the civil law (not in Scotland, though), but this was a 19th-century phenomenon. I’d also point out that there are mixed jurisdictions in the US: Louisiana and Puerto Rico both have civilian substantive private law operating within common-law procedural framework.
Agreed, but misses my point. The common law tradition provided the ideological and cultural basis for limiting national government’s scope and power in the US. The continental traditions that were finally codified in the Napoleonic Code rested on a very different set of experiences, values and history.
Which goes back to Marcus’ misconceived equivalence of US and EU federalism. Because the US legal system rests so strongly on the tradition of which common law was a significant part, Americans reject equally strongly the sort of intrusive “one size fits all” social legislation that flows out of Brussels. To us, the EU’s “federalism” seems a lot more like “assimilation” into an increasingly uniform whole.
Given the fact that there is no real constitution in the UK, and that their system is the result of centuries of common practice and precedent, no one knows what would happen if the Queen were to make a formal speech opposing the EU constitution, or asking for major changes in the UK’s relationship to the EU.
There was a pretty major change in the role of the monarch in the UK during the reign of Victoria. Monarchs before her did actually rule, though in the recent past they had not done so well (e.g. George III). Their powers were not unlimited or unfettered, but they did actually rule.
Victoria didn’t do that during her reign. She kept hands off, and did whatever her Prime Minister told her to. Since she reigned without ruling for 64 years, that was long enough to make her passivity the new standard practice. So none of her successors have either, and the longer that’s gone on, the stronger the precedent has become.
But that was a voluntary change on the part of the crown. For the last 170 years, British monarchs have not directly exercised any important governing power, but does that mean they no longer have any?
My own guess is that this is something like the House of Lords. About a hundred years ago, there was a particular issue which Lords thought was extremely important, and they uncharacteristically interfered with the ability of Commons to act in that area. Lords ended up prevailing, but that also resulted in passage of the Parliament Act in 1911, which formally stripped Lords of the power to do the same thing again. Lords remains part of the parliamentary process, but it doesn’t have any formal power to prevent Commons from doing what it wants. (As it was explained to me, bills which pass Commons go to Lords, who can amend, but the result goes back to Commons who can then strip out the amendments and send the original bill on to the Queen for her signature, making them law.)
My guess is that the Queen probably would turn out to have the power to drastically interfere in government policy, but she could only do so one time. She could exert that power by making a speech, or she might do so more formally by refusing to sign any critical bills which were needed as part of the process of approving the EU constitution. (Since Victoria, the signature of the crown on bills has been considered a formality. But she doesn’t actually have to sign, and in principle if she did not then they aren’t law.)
Whether she could actually prevent the UK from approving the EU constitution, I think one likely result of any attempt would be passage of a bill similar to the Parliament act which made sure she or her successors never did anything like that again.
If that’s the case, or if the monarchs think it is, then it’s clear that this would be something they’d husband carefully, to only use in extreme situations. If the crown still posseses a veto but only one for the entire rest of the future, it’s not something to be expended lightly.
On the other hand, when the government is considering yielding up British sovereignty, and subordinating the kingdom to another government, that’s exactly the kind of situation where the monarch might well feel it was worth playing that last trump card. It could be argued that the kingdom’s future ends when the EU constitution goes into force.
Will she do so? It’s anybody’s guess. I bet even she doesn’t yet know.
And if she does, no one, not even Her Majesty, knows what would happen. The resulting constitutional crisis will be made all the more exciting by the fact that there’s no constitution to refer to and no clearly designated institution with undisputed power to ajudicate the situation.
One possible outcome would be that it would be ajudicated by the House of Lords, in its function as highest court of the land. If so, the ironometer would overload.
The Queen is most unlikely to intervene overtly — the risks would be far too great for the future of the monarchy as a whole; most succinctly and eloquently put by Steven Den Beste above.
If there existed an effective and robust opposition (the Tories), she might be tempted to put it about that she was not in sympathy with having to sign a bill giving away her sovereignty — with the logical the clear implication of a constitutional crisis to follow if such a bill was presented to her. But as Steven said, that’s a one-shot move that could easily backfire.
Besides, with the opposition in disarray, Her Majesty would merely be the lone target of a highly focused and vociferous attack which would almost surely spell the end of the monarchy as an institution.
No, the answer lies in boosting an effective political opposition. And that means the likes of you and me getting off our collective butts and doing something about it — voting, demonstrating, writing letters and generally stirring up an alternative strategy to “Europe”.
I propose the “Angloshere” … and I’ll leave it right there for others to pick up on .. go!
If the Queen does intervene, and does cause a constitutional crises, what’s to prevent other countries from getting involved? The whole thing would be about joining a foreign power to begin with, and Europe might decide that it doesn’t recognize the Queen’s authority anyway and as far as it’s concerned, it’s already in charge.
But the loss of Britain’s independence would mean the loss of an ally for America…
I have a suspicion that if the Queen were to utter (not in so many words, of course): “It’s either me, or the Europeans,” the British people would tell the Euros to get stuffed.
Which is why Blair is running as fast as he can away from a national referendum on joining the EU: he knows he’d lose by a substantial majority, and he (and Labour) would be the ones facing the “crisis.”
Oh, and Marcus, you’re full of it. To use just three examples:
Individual states within the U.S. may decide on:
— whether to have a state income tax (4 don’t)
— whether to employ the death penalty (35 do)
— whether to “allow” unregistered private gun ownership (over 40 do).
Under the EU, please indicate which member nations have the freedom to do likewise.
Being from the other side of the pond, perhaps my opinion doesn’t hold much water, but I would think the Queen could “question” and “express an opinion” without throwing things into a constitutional crisis or jeopardizing the “rights” of the monarchy. Using the “bully pulpit” so to speak.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think a significant number of Britons might be influenced if they felt the Queen had serious concerns re: joining the EU. Certainly, it might put on their radar questions they hadn’t previously thought to ask.
Furthermore, I agree, the comparison of the U.S. “states” with European nations doesn’t stand up.
Really, if the EU constitution goes through in its present form, I think it would be more accurate to refer to the members of the EU as “provinces” of the EU. Are they planning to give up their UN seats after the EU constitution strips them of sovereignty?
Thanks much for the enlightening exploration of the role of the monarch in England.
Extra bonus points – I think that is the first time I have ever heard anyone refer to a den Beste missive as “succinct”! 😉
The Economist has an excellent article on the history of the Europe and points out that the UK joined at a time — 1973 — when things were looking pretty bleak and the EU seemed to promise a, ahem, bright future. Of course, Thatcher has since changed the UK’s direction.
Has anyone publicly questioned the need to join the EU today and pointed to the initial rationale as being obsolete?