Talk:Order in Council

message: Unless I am mistaken, both Order-in-Council and Queen-in-Council refers to the same thing.  If that is the case, then we should merge the two articles together.  --Hurricane111 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly worthwhile in Queen-in-Council, so a simple redirect might be best.--cj | talk 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. I have redirected for now. Jon.baldwin 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The High Court Judge uses both term carefully in para 5 of this 2006 court decision, implying that there is a difference. e.g "The Queen in Council acts upon the advice of a Minister" implying Queen in Council is the action on behalf of the Queen in the Privy Council, rather than the Order created. Rwendland 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: This article should be made more international. I got here via the link in this sentence "The Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) was established by a royal decree on 1 November 1944..." on the Royal Norwegian Air Force page. If I didn't know better I might think the Norwegian Air Force was established by the Queen of England! Inge 10:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not only in the UK and commonwealth 

message: I think the fault here lies with the redirect put on royal decree - it should never have come to this page in the first place, as an order-in-council is a specific type of royal decree that bears relevance only to the UK and other Commonwealth countries. I have therefore changed the redirect of Royal decree to decree, and removed the "worldwide view" tag. Vneiomazza 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy 

message: Orders-in-council seem so similar to Executive Orders in the American presidential system that I wonder if a "See also" link would be appropriate.  The major difference would seemingly be that many of those are never later addressed by ordinary statutory law.  Rlquall 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive orders 

message: I have removed the following paragraph as Nothern Ireland Assembly is no longer suspended --Drgs100 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: It was used to steal the Chagos Islands from its inhabitants.  This happened on June 10, 2004. -See "Stealing a Nation" by John Pilger
Nonsense. Chagos Islands belong to Britain, Britain can't steal from itself. Chagos Islands are not a nation anymore than the Isle of Wight is a nation. They are British territory, and "Stealing a Nation" is nothing more than left wing anti-British propaganda. YourPTR! (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chagos Islands 

message: This article currently seems to be exclusively about the modern situation in which an Order-in-Council is basically an elaborate technicality, but in the past it has been an actual tool used by sovereigns to enact legislation. I came here from George V of the United Kingdom, which said that he changed his Royal House's name to House of Windsor by an Order-in-Council, so was hoping to find some information about what an Order-in-Council in 1917 entailed. --Delirium 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacks historical coverage 

message: How and where are orders-in-council published? Definitive lists of Acts of Parliament and SIs (for recent years) can be found on the internet, but is there any such public availability for orders-in-council. It beggars belief that legislation can be buried in obscurity by not publishing it properly. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication

message: This whole article should be written way more clearly, but the introduction is especially confusing. Wouldn't it be possible to include something about the notablity of an Order-in-Council (i.e. ability to make law by decree) in the intro? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: "This type has become less common with the passage of time, as statutes encroach on areas which used to form part of the Royal Prerogative."
I'm not sure that this is true in the UK. From what I read a few years ago (but did not make a note of at the time, as most EU directives are Treaty obligations -- which bind the UK Government (related to the reason for the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution), but for which no act of Parliament may have been passed -- the use of the Royal Prerogative as a Governmental convenience (to force compliance by non-government actors in the UK  without the necessary enabling legislation) has become some what more used in the last 30 years than in the 30 years before that. A Google search on [European Union Royal Prerogative] returns a number of articles on this. PBS (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union and the Royal Prerogative 

message: Just noting that OICs are often controversial in Canada and its provinces; usually in the context of avoiding parliamentary debate, since they don't have to be put on the order paper.  There are three items currently; there could be hundreds; I'm not going to get into it, other than noting it's not just OICs on major controversies but legions of minor ones.  All kinds of governmental restructuring and policy changes are made using them, with little or no parliamentary debate or public recourse and only rarely, if ever, court action to overturn them (you need, for one thing, the Crown's permission to proceed).  Some I know of for sure are various OICs reducing provincial parks in BC, or converting them into protected areas (i.e. reducing the level of protection); but that's only one of many possible items to raise.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada section

message: When the Parliament could not quickly silence Radio 390 an Order in Council was made to redraw the coastline in order to extend territorial waters and bring the station under existing UK law. Then the Crown took Radio 390 to court and prosecuted the station successfully under the existing law. Another instance took place when an Order was extended to override the Manx - Isle of Man Parliament in order to silence Radio Caroline North. There are many other examples of the use of these Orders to achieve that which the Parliament cannot achieve. All of this is due to the lack of a written constitution in the name of, by, and for "The People". Someone added in another section of this article that these acts are similar to acts undertaken by the President of the USA. That is sheer nonsense. In the USA citizens and residents have written constitutional rights, but in the UK they have privileges, and there is a big difference! This is a very poor article. 80.192.68.143 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of its use to crush offshore radio of the 1960s

message: The rationale I gave when moving this article from Order-in-Council to Order in Council is truncated when viewing the page history.  The full text I typed was:
"Order in Council" is the form used in British (and apparently also Canadian) official usage, is how the term is listed in the OED, and is how the term is given in roughly 95% of the first 500 results returned by Google (many of the exceptions being Wikipedia clones)
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move from "Order-in-Council" to "Order in Council" 

message: Substituted at 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Order in Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426232549/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528160028/http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf to http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus, and in particular, the use of "Council" as a proper noun. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Order in Council →  – Not a proper name. (It refers to a type of legislative instrument that exists in many countries, not a particular piece of legislation.) 156.57.13.133 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 August 2021