Read on Twitter
While the Queen *technically* has the power to refuse Royal Assent to legislation, it hasn't been exercised since 1707. The notion that Her Majesty should independently assess the legal propriety of a bill is problematic. 1/7 https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1303373577299861506
The Queen can certainly voice her concerns to her ministers, but if they insist on moving forward with the bill, and Parliament passes it, she must grant it Royal Assent. Otherwise, she's substituting her personal judgment for that of her responsible ministers and Parliament. 2/7
If Her Majesty refused Royal Assent, the Government would be entitled to resign in protest, and it's hard to see how the Queen could find an alternative administration capable of commanding the confidence of the Commons. 3/7
Given the parliamentary arithmetic, you'd need a large number of Tory defections to sustain an alternative government (and if there was that much disquiet on the Tory benches over the Internal Market Bill, it's doubtful the Commons would have passed it in the first place!). 4/7
In a situation like that, an early General Election seems like it would be inevitable, but it would essentially be a referendum on the propriety of the Queen's actions. That's not a good place for a constitutional monarch to be in. 5/7
And what if the Tories were returned to office and brought the Internal Market Bill back? Should the Queen veto it again? If she did that, the Crown would have firmly set itself against Parliament (and, by extension, the British people). 6/7
The bottom line is that it's for MPs and peers to decide if they're comfortable with the problematic aspects of the Internal Market Bill. If their answer is 'yes,' the Queen must give the bill Royal Assent. 7/7
