A proposed bill needs a royal assent, but that's pretty much automatic and isn't the queen sitting at a desk rubber stamping laws. Royalty hasn't got involved in a law for a long time. Joel actually said the queen approves all laws and it isn't true, she has nothing to do with trade laws for example, which is the EU.

I think he would make a good council member but I would be very concerned if he even became a backbencher. Especially with his strange views on sexuality and emotional intelligence.

He is only 19 fgs. He's still learning

Parliament is there to serve the Monarch, so if they do what there supposed to, there's never a need to not assent a law by the monarch.

Which confirms the "unlikely"

I think you mean royal assent. Royal ascent means the Queen going up in a lift.

...or what her gynaecologist does?

One does not rise in a lift, the lift rises to one.

The definition of assent is the expression of approval or agreement. You should probably realise Joel was speaking to an idiot so made the necessary adjustments to his word.

Factually, Joel was not incorrect. Parliamentary Laws need the Royal Assent. The issue with EU law is not straightforward; you will find that they're able to take effect into the UK due to a parliamentary act (European Communities Act 1972).

Joel was correct about royal assent. What makes you think "that hasn't been around for a long time"? See extract from Wikipaedia:

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

EU directives etc are somewhat different since they are intended to deliver the objectives of EU Treaties and are amendments to the same which have already passed into UK law..

Judging by various mutterings by former PMs the monarch has quite a bit of input into proposed legislation through their weekly meetings. The fact it can be seen as "rubber stamping" doesn't change the fact any Act requires the monarch's approval.

Yep. And nothing wrong in wanting to learn. Joel's age is irrelevant some people have genius status at 12.

Royal assent is not approval by the queen, as some of you say it is a formality; the queen isn't there ruminating whether to approve a law; representatives do that for her automatically. Joel implied that the queen approves laws, and she doesn't. She is just a figurehead and ambassador. The fact that royalty has had nothing to do with the proposal of laws for so long shows quite clearly how much involvement the queen has.

You do realise that D*nny won't retain any of that info, right? His shoes probably have L and R written on them.

Joel stated fact, which is why you are now changing your tune to ''implied'' in a pointless attempt to save face. Factually, acts of Parliament need the Royal assent; it is a formality but the fact that it is a formality does not contradict what Joel said.

Wind your neck in! No need to be like that. I haven't changed my tune at all, the queen does not approve laws. The royal assent thing isn't her personal approval; its delegated to a representative and automatic. Joel was wrong, sorry you don't seem to like that.

The law requires Letters Patent under the monarch's own hand granting assent.

You got a couple of things wrong. It's capital not capitol, and lots not lot's. And by the way, Britain does have a constitutional monarchy. Look it up.

My point still stands, she doesn't personally approve laws, letters patent is for appointing peerage. A representative will automatically approve a law, it's a formality.

That is not the case:

(1)An Act of Parliament is duly enacted if Her Majesty’s Assent thereto, being signified by Letters Patent under the Great Seal signed with Her Majesty’s own hand,— .

(a)is pronounced in the presence of both Houses in the House of Lords in the form and manner customary before the passing of this Act; or .

(b)is notified to each House of Parliament, sitting separately, by the Speaker of that House or in the case of his absence by the person acting as such Speaker.

Royal Assent Act 1967

Which means she does sit at a desk and signs each one

To be fair you could tell Danny his own surname and you would be educating him

You are correct in saying that the Queen doesn't propose legislation but she does give royal assent to every law by signing them personally. Who knows how much time the Queen spends considering legislation that is put before her?

How can a lift rise to you, unless it is on the floor below? Once it reaches you, you get in and rise or descend in the lift. I don't understand your point.

She doesn't personally approve laws, it is delegated and automatic.

(2)Nothing in this section affects the power of Her Majesty to declare Her Royal Assent in person in Parliament, or the manner in which an Act of Parliament is required to be endorsed in Her Majesty’s name.

It's getting a bit tiresome repeating the same thing to pedants who desperately want me to be wrong for some reason. Ask anyone in the House of Lords or commons and they will scoff at the notion of the queen personally approving laws.

You are so wrong. The Queen personally signs every new.act of parliament How can she delegate it to a representative ? Who would represent her? Laws are drafted by Parliament and debated there. But before the Government can enact new legislation, it must be personally signed by the Queen. It's people like you who spread the rumours that the Queen does nothing but wave.