UK is a monarchy.

[Sava]

At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws in areas such as higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was also asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act in 2004.

In the Whitehall document, which was released following a court order, the Parliamentary Counsel warns that if consent is not given by the royals "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals have "real influence and real power".

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," he said.

The document also contains a warning to civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation. Royal approval may even be needed for amendments to laws, it says.

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals "are playing an active role in the democratic process".

He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the powers were "appropriate."

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," he said.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

The power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12 government bills since 2005 on issues covering gambling to the Olympics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

but that's okay because

think of the TOURISM!

you brits deserve to live on your knees

[Ben Kenobi]

Personally I prefer to be a subject of the Queen than being ground beneath the foot of King Obama the first.

[The Mad Monk]

The Queen has their launch codes.

Seriously.

It's been defended here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you feel safer with Elizabeth II having nuclear launch codes vs Obama?

[PLATO]

Prince Charles does not have a "power of veto". The Queen's "Assent" not "Consent" is needed for all bills, not just some as the article implies. The Assent is not something that is hidden and her assent (or lack thereof) is publically noted.

This entire article is extremely suspect.

[BlackCat]

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

Why is this bad ? Wouldn't the american president also veto such a similar law from the senate ?

[PLATO]

Would you feel safer with Elizabeth II having nuclear launch codes vs Obama?

This was addressed in a thread not all that long ago. The British Navy will not fire nuclear weapons over the Queen's objections.

In looking at the monarchy, we must also recognize that these are people who, while living lives of plenty, dedicate their entire lives to the service of their people. It may be hard for us freedom loving Americans to understand the level of dedication to their country and people that the royal family has, but it is there nonetheless.

[PLATO]

Why is this bad ? Wouldn't the american president also veto such a similar law from the senate ?

I believe Sava is alluding to the fact that the authority is vested in a non elected official and that the power transfer to elected officials was denied. I do not believe that this is an accurate account however. The Queen withholding assent on any bill would be very large news and you can rest assured that someone in Parliament would have raised a huge stink.

Once again, I find the article highly suspect.

[BlackCat]

The Queen withholding assent on any bill would be very large news and you can rest assured that someone in Parliament would have raised a huge stink.

You forget that I'm danish - last time that happened here we almost became a republic

Edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis_of_1920

[PLATO]

You forget that I'm danish - last time that happened here we almost became a republic

Edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis_of_1920

I did indeed...and thanks for the read. Interesting article.

[notyoueither]

I believe Sava is alluding to the fact that the authority is vested in a non elected official and that the power transfer to elected officials was denied. I do not believe that this is an accurate account however. The Queen withholding assent on any bill would be very large news and you can rest assured that someone in Parliament would have raised a huge stink.

Once again, I find the article highly suspect.

I seem to recall that happening, and no I don't recall a stink. It may have been accepted that Parliament tried to over-reach.

[MRT144]

I'll give you one guess to which poly tubby is flipping his ****. It rhymes with bed turn.

[PLATO]

I seem to recall that happening, and no I don't recall a stink. It may have been accepted that Parliament tried to over-reach.

Okay, I have it. It was not a bill that was passed and did not receive assent. It was a bill dealing with changing the royal prerogative that needed the Queen's consent to even be debated.

From the Wiki article:

The Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill was a private member's bill introduced into the United Kingdom House of Commons by Tam Dalyell MP under the Ten Minute Rule. It received its formal first reading on 26 January 1999.[1] The bill sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament. The long title of the bill was a Bill to require the prior approval, by a simple majority of the House of Commons, of military action by United Kingdom forces against Iraq.[2] It was presented by Tam Dalyell and supported by Tony Benn, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Neil Gerrard, Dr Ian Gibson, John McAllion, Alice Mahon, Robert Marshall-Andrews, Dennis Skinner and Audrey Wise.[3]

The bill became Bill 35 in the 1998/1999 Parliamentary session, and was initially scheduled for second reading on 16 April 1999. As a bill modifying the monarch's prerogative powers, the Queen's consent was required before it could be debated in Parliament. This is perhaps the only remaining situation in which the Sovereign is directly and substantively involved in the process of a Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, in contrast to the ceremonial act of granting Royal Assent to a Bill.

The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated. The second reading was initially postponed from 16 April until 23 July 1999.[4][5] Due to the Crown's continuing refusal to signify its consent to the Bill being debated, it could not receive its second reading on 23 July 1999. In the absence of a request for a further postponement, the Bill was automatically dropped before it obtained its second reading.[6][7][8]

When military action against Iraq was eventually organised in 2003, the government sought Parliamentary approval on 18 March 2003, one day before the invasion began, although no powers under the royal prerogative were thereby transferred to Parliament.

So...it seems that there actually may be some validity to the article afterall.....

[regexcellent]

Would you feel safer with Elizabeth II having nuclear launch codes vs Obama?

No.

[kentonio]

So...it seems that there actually may be some validity to the article afterall.....

The important part is right here..

The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated.

Had the advice been that she should allow the bill to be debated then it would have been.