Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
- From: graham.truesdale@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Apr 2007 13:07:01 -0700
On Apr 8, 7:46 pm, "Chris Bennett" <cjbenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:22 pm, "George Knighton" <georgeknigh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:<snip>
For example, Canada can change its law of succession to favour
Princess Anne over Prince Andrew if it wants.
True, and also true for any other realm.
There is however the preamble to the Statute of WestminsterHowever, the United
Kingdom can *not* do that without consulting every other realm of the
Commonwealth ahead of time and securing the patent assent of the
governments and legislatures ahead of time.
Not true. There is absolutely nothing in British law that stops the UK from
doing this -- and if there were it would disadvantage the UK compared to
Canada and the other realms, which goes against the principle that they are
all equal in status.
This point comes up repeatedly. It is (virtually) certain that the UK would
not make unilateral changes to the succession, because that is
long-established policy, but it certainly could, if it so chose.
'And whereas it is in accord with the established
constitutional position that no law hereafter made
by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend
to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that
Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the
consent of that Dominion:'
I realise that the Preamble is not legally binding, but
then it is not possible for one Parliament to bind its
successors in any case (See discussion in British
Railways Board v Pickin, 1974, House of Lords).
- Prev by Date: Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
- Next by Date: Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
- Previous by thread: Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
- Next by thread: Re: Queen of Canada WHY?