The king should announce an election.
the king should announce the abolishment of the royal family
Why not both?
That would probably create a constitutional crisis in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
The power to dissolve parliament is "perhaps the most important residual prerogative exercised personally by the sovereign, and represents the greatest potential for controversy."[15] This prerogative is normally exercised at the request of the prime minister, either at his or her discretion or following a motion of no confidence. Constitutional theorists have had differing views as to whether a unilateral dissolution of Parliament would be possible today; Sir Ivor Jennings wrote that a dissolution involves "the acquiescence of ministers", and as such the monarch could not dissolve Parliament without ministerial consent; "if ministers refuse to give such advice, she can do no more than dismiss them". A. V. Dicey, however, believed that in certain extreme circumstances the monarch could dissolve Parliament single-handedly, on the condition that "an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors ... A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation."
Just add it to the list of crises
If only we had a body of people who could change the law on that problem.
Well yes, we're all aware of the reality of that situation, but wouldn't it be nice?
That doesn't sound like it's ill-defined then.
The government have beaten you to it by rejecting a verdict of the supreme court today.
looks
If I understand aright what's going on, I don't believe that that's a constitutional crisis.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213147180/uk-supreme-court-rwanda-asylum-policy-sunak
Following the ruling, Sunak said in a news conference Wednesday evening that he would "pass emergency legislation" to deem Rwanda a safe country and that he would "not allow foreign courts to block the flights" the U.K. plans to use to transfer migrants to the African country.
So, he's not rejecting the ruling, but rather saying that he'll have Parliament pass a law to permit it, which will simply render the ruling ineffective.
Here in the US, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review of federal laws; they asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison -- which was a constitutional crisis -- and it wasn't disputed. That produced a lot of why the US works the way it does today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
So, SCOTUS can say "Congress has done something unconstitutional". That invalidates the law. There's no direct recourse the President or Congress has to override that.
That's not how the British system works. The Supreme Court in the UK can say that the executive has done something that conflicts with British law. But it has no power of judicial review of laws that Parliament passes -- it cannot invalidate laws Parliament puts through. Because the Westminster system is a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system, because the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament, the two are generally in accord. So if the Supreme Court says "what the executive is doing is illegal", the Prime Minister can generally just have Parliament pass a law to make it legal.
There is no constitution in the UK separate from any law that Parliament might choose to pass. A simple majority in the House of Commons -- technically the King-in-Parliament -- is the absolute power in the UK, is where sovereignty is vested, whereas in the US, it is vested in the US Constitution, where the bar for constitutional revision is three-quarters of US states.
So in practice, the Supreme Court in the UK has much less ability to limit action of the British executive than SCOTUS does over here. It can really only do so if the executive and Parliament are in disagreement as to the proper course of action.
I was employing hyperbole, but yes you are right in the most detailed way possible
I'm surprised that people aren't hitting the streets in protest already. This dude supposedly tries to speedrun worst PM from what I'm gathering through the headlines.
Already lost that one to Liz Truss I'm afraid
He can get away with being worse for longer becsuse he has a penis.
Yeah but he is brown, which is a mark against him with the kind of people who vote tory
I really hope Charles decides to make a giant issue about being forced to say this. He obviously knows how dystopian these new legislations are and has campaigned against climate change in the past. It would be incredibly bankrupt if he just said whatever to it.
Technically, he's not allowed to. And that is preferable to the alternative. Ideally, he will abolish himself and then be free to speak. But he won't.
I bet this will go down just as well as the new system for Ofgem to calculate the cap on consumer energy prices they implemented back ~2017.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rishi Sunak will this week announce legislation for a new annual system for awarding oil and gas licences as part of a highly political king’s speech which the Conservatives hope will open up clear dividing lines with Labour.
Sunak has already watered down the government’s climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers, prompting furious condemnation from the automobile and energy industries.
Ed Miliband, the shadow climate secretary, said the plan to mandate annual oil and gas licensing was unnecessary, suggesting the government was more focused on creating dividing lines over the green agenda ahead of the next election.
Government sources suggested there were unlikely to be any major surprises in the king’s speech with many of the measures already in the public domain such as a phased smoking ban and a new regulator for English football, while several other bills would be carried over.
It is also expected to include criminal justice measures such as restricting the use of tents by homeless people on the streets of Britain – with growing numbers of rough sleepers and what the government considers a rise in antisocial behaviour.
The policy agenda set out on Tuesday would be aimed at “people who want to see a common-sense approach”, one government source said, in a nod to wedge issues such as climate change, migration and gender identity which the Tories plan to weaponise ahead of the election.
The original article contains 902 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Is the new system "slip me a couple million quid and you can do whatever you want"? Because if it is, that's just the old system again
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.