• pet1t@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    10 days ago

    We had the Royal question and in 1990 the small royal question. That last one I can’t find a lot of information in English, but essentially the king was dethroned for a day because he refused to sign the new abortion law.

    edit: quick Deepl translation on the small royal question, or mini-royal crisis

    In Belgium, the ‘mini-royal crisis’ refers to the events surrounding King Baudouin’s refusal to give royal assent to the bill to decriminalise abortion.

    On 30 March 1990, Baudouin sent two letters to the then Prime Minister Martens in which he stated that, due to moral qualms, he could not bring himself to sign the bill in question. However, he did not wish to obstruct the democratic process and therefore requested, in a second letter, a solution whereby the law could come into force without him having to sign it himself. In that letter, Baudouin himself suggested amending the Constitution, specifically Article 26, paragraph 1, so that the King would no longer be required to sign new laws.

    Baudouin’s conscientious objection was rooted in his deeply Catholic faith, compounded by the fact that the royal couple at the time were childless, despite a strong desire to have children.

    The solution devised for the ‘mini-royal issue’ is legally controversial. Martens had based his argument on the commentary by ULB professor Jean Stengers in his biography of King Leopold III. According to Martens’s chief of staff, the constitutionalist André Alen, Martens himself was the originator of the idea, namely the combination of elements from two constitutional provisions (the current Articles 90(2) and 93 of the Constitution).

    Article 90, paragraph 2, reads:

    From the death of the King until the swearing-in of his successor to the throne or of the Regent, the constitutional powers of the King shall be exercised in the name of the Belgian people by the Ministers meeting in Council and under their responsibility.

    Article 93 reads:

    If the King is unable to reign, the Ministers, having established this inability, shall immediately convene the Houses. The joint session of the Houses shall make provision for guardianship and regency.

    Only the second clause of Article 90, paragraph 2, was used, as the King had not died. In the case of Article 93, only the first sentence was used, and thus no provision was made for guardianship and regency.

    Baudouin’s letter was read out in the Chamber of Representatives on 3 April 1990, after which the King’s inability to reign was established. Consequently, the Council of Ministers was empowered to ratify the Act. Following ratification by the Council of Ministers, the joint session of the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate voted on 5 April 1990 to establish that the King was once again able to reign.

  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.caEnglish
    2·
    9 days ago

    Not sure the Prime Minister with a majority has any meaningful limits on power, the office can do whatever it pleases pretty well. Canadians barely even have any rights that can’t be overruled by an act of Parliament. OTOH the PM can be removed at any time for absolutely any reason.