Has Boris Johnson brought down the monarchy?

[Ldr]

With all the inevitable questions and look into all the facets of the unwritten constitution and conventions has BJ put the position of the monarchy at risk?

[Glyn_Wigley]

No.

[IDM]

No

[drfcsteve]

Yes potentially. Convention and precedent has effectively been our constitution for hundreds of years, but that requires the PM to be Honourable. Boris isn't, he's gone too far and proved that we actually need to write some of these conventions down, otherwise they are open to abuse.

If we have a written constitution, is everybody confident that there will still be a role for an unelected hereditary head of state?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Yes potentially. Convention and precedent has effectively been our constitution for hundreds of years, but that requires the PM to be Honourable. Boris isn't, he's gone too far and proved that we actually need to write some of these conventions down, otherwise they are open to abuse.

If we have a written constitution, is everybody confident that there will still be a role for an unelected hereditary head of state?

Monarchys in the other countries with written Constitutions seem to manage OK.

[IDM]

As has been demonstrated with the proroguing, the sovereign has no real power, it’s only ceremonial - it’s official ie giving royal assent to laws passed by Parliament, but the queen can’t oppose the will of Parliament.

There may be constitutional upheavals but I can’t see why the figurehead without real power would need to change.

[drfcsteve]

Presumably a majority in the Commons would need to agree with that view, should there be legislation brought forward for a written constitution.

[Not Now Kato]

Yes potentially. Convention and precedent has effectively been our constitution for hundreds of years, but that requires the PM to be Honourable. Boris isn't, he's gone too far and proved that we actually need to write some of these conventions down, otherwise they are open to abuse.

If we have a written constitution, is everybody confident that there will still be a role for an unelected hereditary head of state?

Monarchys in the other countries with written Constitutions seem to manage OK.

Indeed, but on a far lesser scale.  Too many 'hangers on' in ours IMO.

[Filo]

Is he guilty of Treason?

[drfchound]

I was wondering what is he guilty of and what punishment is he likely to get for breaking the law?

[The Red Baron]

I was wondering what is he guilty of and what punishment is he likely to get for breaking the law?

I think the key difference here is "illegal" and "unlawful." The SC has ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully, not illegally. It has often ruled that the Government has acted unlawfully in other Judicial Reviews. No-one goes to jail, but the Government has to review, or reverse its actions. This is surely the case here.

Now there is potentially a different argument over the Benn Act, in that if the PM refused to request an extension of Article 50 on or after the specified date, and then failed to act on a court order requiring him to do so, he could be held to be acting illegally, i.e. in Contempt of Court.

[Sprotyrover]

Is he guilty of Treason?

😂😂😂😂😂

[drfcsteve]

The key difference is between civil and criminal law. Their is no punishment of jail etc in this circumstance, but that doesn't make it any less unlawful.

[foxbat]

re the OP, for me , I would ship the lot of them out now.
but to keep most people happy , certainly wrap it all up after Elizabeth II . ' King Charles ' FFS ! , not for me.

[SydneyRover]

re the OP, for me , I would ship the lot of them out now.
but to keep most people happy , certainly wrap it all up after Elizabeth II . ' King Charles ' FFS ! , not for me.

Charles inherited all his wit and charm directly from phil and has a lot in common with johnson. Bundle them out times up.