Could the Queen break the Brexit deadlock?

The Queen is reportedly worried she could be dragged into the Brexit mayhem paralysing Parliament and in so doing spark a constitutional crisis.

If MPs eventually back a softer form of Brexit and Theresa May’s deal is voted down for a fourth time, the government would face huge pressure to implement a policy that directly contradicts the Conservative’s own 2017 election manifesto.

If the prime minister refuses, however, “MPs are said to be considering passing an Act of Parliament and going over the government’s head”, says iNews.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

In a paper for the Policy Exchange think tank, two constitutional experts have claimed May could then recommend that the Queen decline to give royal assent to any bill forced through by parliament against the wishes of the government.

This has been described as the nuclear option of last-resort as it “would set up a constitutional crisis with the Queen, who is famously completely neutral on political matters in public” says the Daily Mirror.

The Times reports that Buckingham Palace will be concerned at the prospect of a chaotic political breakdown dragging the Queen into politics.

“The palace are bricking it,” a political source told the paper.

Chris White, a former special adviser to William Hague, and Sir Patrick McLoughlin, the former Tory chief whip, also warn that this is not without high risk. “It is the government’s duty to keep the monarch out of politics, and to provide such advice would politicise the Queen in an unacceptable and extraordinary way.”

LBC’s Maajid Nawaz says the idea that the Queen could refuse to sign a bill into law was “unthinkable” up until now.

“The reason the Monarchy has survived so long is that the Monarchy knows that to do so would pretty much bode the end of the Monarchy,” he said, adding: “It has never happened, and the reason it’s never happened is the same reason why the Queen is still Queen, because nobody wants to test the waters in this regard.”

While most attention has been on the constitutional ramifications of her refusing to sign a parliamentary bill into law, The Metro reports “the Queen’s main concern is thought to be the 2011 Fixed Term Parliament Act’s no confidence procedure”.

This would be triggered following a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and as a result MPs would be given two weeks to form a new government. The Metro reports that Queen “could have to make a decision as whether to invite Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or Tory deputy David Lidington to form a new government”.

“She’s apparently not happy with this” the paper says, “but the public seems keen to get her involved despite her reluctance.”

“Notionally, at least, most British Parliamentarians and political commentators claim to believe in and support constitutional monarchy,” writes Andrew Lilico in the Daily Telegraph.

“Well, constitutional monarchy is supposed to exist to resolve precisely this sort of situation,” he says, arguing “most of us would probably accept her verdict even if it went against us.”

Unsurprisingly anti-monarchy campaign group Republic takes a different stance.

“The problem is the Queen is in an impossible position, and that exposes the nonsense of the monarchy. If she does nothing the monarchy is impotent and pointless, if she does something then where’s the accountability?” writes Republic chief executive Graham Smith.

“Brexit is dangerous territory for the Queen: if she were to act, even on Theresa May’s instruction, her actions would divide the country. And there’s the problem, a country divided about the judgement of our head of state with no means by which to hold her to account.”