Tiriol wrote: ↑
Is there a possibility that once the Parliament meets, they could themselves advice the Queen to NOT to listen to Prime Minister's advice on this matter (effectively giving a vote of no-confidence to Johnson)? The ball would then be at the Queen's hands whether he listens to her Prime Minister or to the Parliament.
As far as I understand about UK's unwritten constitution, no. The UK constitution operates more on precedence, so anything that has not been done before is simply not done because doing so will be unconstitutional.
Are you talking about the UK in specific or as a general rule? Because a lot of head of states (Russia, France, US etc.) do have a lot more power than being mere ceremonial figures.
I'm talking about parliamentary democracy based on the UK system. Singapore's political system is largely similar to the UK's system, as it was based on it. Instead of a hereditary monarch as the head of state, our system elects a president. While the Singaporean presidency technically has more powers than the British monarch (control over the nation's reserve), ultimately they are just a figurehead and ceremonial figure.
If you want to know how chaotic things can turn out when a UK-style ceremonial head of state figure decides to directly intervene in politics, look at Australia in 1975.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Au ... nal_crisis
TRR is being pedantic about the whole issue of the queen acceding to Boris Johnson's request. The British monarch absolutely must follow established precedence because that's UK's constitution. What Boris Johnson is doing is already sparking off a constitutional crisis because he's done something that's never been done before in terms of how long he is prorouging the parliament.
The monarch refusing his request would be an even bigger constitutional crisis, and one that can easily benefit Boris Johnson. Because even if the queen refused to do so, the UK might be so embroiled in such a massive constitutional crisis that no legislative body can resolve Brexit before October 31st and the UK still tumble out with a no deal.
So Yes TRR is willing to risk things becoming even worse just so he can beat his chest about how awesome he is that he is able to label the monarchy as being in complete cahoots with Boris Johnson. He's willing to make the monarchy more powerful just because he didn't get the political results he wished for. I think he's an extremely tribalistic idiot that will sabotage people's lives and undermine the progressive movements because he is unable to see the world does not operate in a way that a 5 year old child would want it to be.
What purpose does it serve for the UK to be in a midst of a massive constitutional crisis a month before the Brexit no-deal deadline? Does TRR even care about the political consequences of what he wants from the Queen? He said he doesn't care about the opinions of the British, so what exactly is he doing that's actually helping the people actually living here?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.