Thread by @andrew_lilico

I think the withholding of Queen's Consent is fairly clearly the correct path for Boris, but it may be worth remarking that the (quite distinct) issue of Royal Assent being refused shld not be ruled out either. It's perhaps worth exploring why.+

+Royal Assent was last formally withheld in Great Britain in 1708. It's worth observing that it was withheld on govt advice. It wasn't Anne defying her govt. It was Anne doing what her govt told her. As far we're aware that was the last time a govt recommended no Royal Assent.+

+Through the 18th & early 19th centuries, British Kings routinely declared they wld not grant Assent to things - even govt policies - & so those measures lapsed without forcing Assent to be formally refused. eg Catholic Emancipation was blocked for decades by no Royal Assent.+

+In the time of Victoria the monarch switch from declaring publicly that Assent wld be withheld to declaring it privately. The last time serious consideration was given to refusal of Assent in the UK was 1914.+

+However, in other Crown Realms Royal Assent was withheld several times during the 20th century. A particularly well-known case was in Alberta in the 1930s. The principle that that power still exists was sufficiently important that it was re-stated in the Royal Assent Act 1967.+

+Obviously Royal Assent shld not be expected to be withheld all the time, so it is no argument against its still existing that the power has not been exercised for some decades.+

+If a PM recommended the withholding of Royal Assent from some bill, presumably that PM wld face a no-confidence vote. That wld be Parliament's right. But that doesn't mean the PM lacks the power to advise Assent be refused. I know of no precedent for such advice being rejected.

As well as Assent being actually refused in Crown Realms during the 20th Century, it was pre-announced that Assent *would* be refused as recently as 1980 (in New South Wales).