Political power of Queen ojf the UK

Today, some prerogative powers are directly exercised by ministers without the approval of Parliament, including the powers of declaring war and of making peace, to issue passports, and to grant honours. Prerogative powers are exercised nominally by the monarch, but on the advice of the prime minister (with whom the monarch meets on a weekly basis) and on the advice of the cabinet. Some key functions of the British government are still executed by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, but generally the usage of the prerogative has been diminishing as functions are progressively put on a statutory basis.

Limitations

There have been several influential decisions of the House of Lords which have seriously limited the use of prerogatives. In 1915, the Lords decided in Re Petition of Right, which concerned the British Army's seizure of a commercial airfield for military purposes during wartime. The government argued it was to defend against an invasion; the courts held that for the prerogative to be exercised, the government must demonstrate that an invasion situation exists. This was backed up by The Zamora, where the Privy Council held generally that to exercise a power not granted by statute (such as a prerogative) the government must prove to the court that the use is justified. The next limitation came in Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd,^[38] where the House of Lords confirmed that no new prerogative powers could be created, and that a statutory provisions in an area where prerogative powers are in use "abridges the Royal Prerogative while it is in force to this extent - that the Crown can only do the particular thing under and in accordance with the statutory provisions, and that its prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance".

 This principle of statutory superiority was extended in Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade, where it was confirmed that prerogative powers could not be used to contradict a statutory provision, and that in situations where the power and the statute were designed to be used side by side, the power could only be used to further the aim of the statute. Another extension came with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, where the Court of Appeal held that even if a statute had not yet come into force, the prerogative could not be used to alter this statute to "conflict with Parliament's wishes". 

Judicial review

The courts have traditionally been unwilling to subject prerogative powers to judicial review. Judges were only willing to state whether or not powers existed, not whether they had been used appropriately. They therefore applied only the first of the Wednesbury tests; whether the use was illegal. Constitutional scholars such as William Blackstone consider this appropriate:

In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account.

During the 1960s and 70s, this attitude began to change. In R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Lain, the courts held that prerogative powers could be reviewed if they were being used to perform a "judicial" task; the issues at hand were ones that the courts were easily able to decide. The Laker Airways case lent further weight to the idea that prerogative powers should be subject to stronger judicial review, with Lord Denning saying that "seeing that the prerogative is a discretionary power to be exercised for the public good, it follows that its exercise can be examined by the courts just as any other discretionary power which is vested in the executive". The most authoritative case on the matter is Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, generally known as the GCHQ case. The House of Lords confirmed that the application of judicial review would be dependant on the nature of the government's powers, not their source. Foreign policy and national security powers are considered outside the scope of judicial review, while the prerogative of mercy is considered within it, as per R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley.

Reform

Abolition of the Royal Prerogative is not on the immediate horizon, and recent movements to abolish the role of the monarchy and its Royal Prerogative in government have been unsuccessful. The Ministry of Justice undertook a "review of executive Royal Prerogative powers" in October 2009. Former left wing Labour MP Tony Benn campaigned unsuccessfully for the abolition of the Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, arguing that all governmental powers in effect exercised on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and require parliamentary approval. Later governments argued that such is the breadth of topics covered by the Royal Prerogative that requiring parliamentary approval in each instance where the prerogative is currently used would overwhelm parliamentary time and slow the enactment of legislation. 

Modern status

Today, 16 of the 53 independent states within the Commonwealth, including the United Kingdom, remain Commonwealth realms and share the same monarch. The present monarch, Elizabeth II, succeeded her father, George VI, in 1952. Like her recent predecessors, Elizabeth II continues to function as a constitutional monarch. During her reign, the republican movement has grown, partly due to negative publicity associated with the Royal Family (for instance, following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales). Recent polls show that around 20% of the British public support the abolition of the monarchy.