Comment by afandian
1 day ago
We recently had a significant test of this. Boris Johnson asked the late Queen to prorogue (shut down) parliament in order to prevent debate on the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the European Union.
In theory he was asking permission from the Queen. But in practice, everyone knew that the Queen was powerless to reject his request. Even for something as plainly anti-democratic.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the prorogation was not lawful.
Lots of people were hoping that the Queen would stand up for the people. It was a complicated moment when she didn't!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_prorogatio...
This kind of stuff is fascinating because it's the state interacting with itself. The Queen was powerless to reject his request, he being the leader of the government who governed in her name, whose prorogation was overturned by judges she appointed. She ultimately did not need to act because she had an army of people who acted on her behalf. This is not to say that every misuse of power is always caught, but rather that the Monarch gets to maintain a facade of impartiality because all the partiality is being done by their institutions instead.
The page you linked to ends with:
> The proposed Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill emphasised the non-justiciability of the revived prerogative powers, prevented courts from making certain rulings in relation to a Government's power to dissolve Parliament. It received royal assent over two years later, on 24 March 2022.
As some have said before, it effectively means in future the Supreme Court can't undo or interfere with prorogation like what Boris Johnson did in 2019. The Labour party have said they won't cancel this law, so Kier Starmer can now do same as Boris and courts can't stop him.