Monarchy

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Well I won't be getting a card off her or any of her inbred children. 

[njackets]

I'm a Monarchest, love the Queen bumped into Prince Harry a couple of times whilst serving once when he was a Cadet and once when he was on a course, he's a sound lad.

 

Switch BBC1 on now, would you switch the Queen with David Cameron? Exactly!

[ben48]

Saw all those flags hanging down the streets yesterday,reminded me of film of the Nuremburg rallies but with different flags.

[cloggypop]

I'm a Monarchest, love the Queen bumped into Prince Harry a couple of times whilst serving once when he was a Cadet and once when he was on a course, he's a sound lad.

 

Switch BBC1 on now, would you switch the Queen with David Cameron? Exactly!

They cost loads of money and are unelected.

[thegreatelephant]

i enjoy the sheer resentment their presence creates

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm a Monarchest, love the Queen bumped into Prince Harry a couple of times whilst serving once when he was a Cadet and once when he was on a course, he's a sound lad.

 

Switch BBC1 on now, would you switch the Queen with David Cameron? Exactly!

The Queen is the Head of State.  I want an elected Head of State.

 

David Cameron is Prime Minister, by virtue of being the Leader of the party elected to Government.

 

That line of argument - "President Jimmy Saville?  Is that what you want?" - is fatuous.  I want the right to have some say in who should be our Head of State.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm a Monarchest, love the Queen bumped into Prince Harry a couple of times whilst serving once when he was a Cadet and once when he was on a course, he's a sound lad.

 

 

That's irrelevant.  It's not personal.

[littletedwest]

Controversial I know but I don't mind them. I know it's illogical and shit but I don't. No real reason why.

When my dad was on a mental ward though he was sure prince Charles owed him 6 grand from a bet so that grates

[Rico1304]

Got to be the most gilded cage ever.

[Strontium]

That's irrelevant.  It's not personal.

 

It sounds awfully personal when you're calling them parasites.

 

Personally, while I am in principle a republican, I find it hard to get too upset about anyone who is preventing us from having a President Blair.

[Rico1304]

Plus the poor cow is colour blind.

[Priory Doctor]

I have to laugh when the Brexiters say they want us to get Sovereignty back.

The Royal family are a  family of German descent who changed their name to Windsor to sound more British

The House of Lords are an Unelected Assembly who have a veto on every Act of Parliament that the elected Assembly may try to pass.

And the Monarchy have the ultimate decision on signing any proposed Bill or Act of Parliament

[Strontium]

And the Monarchy have the ultimate decision on signing any proposed Bill or Act of Parliament

 

No they don't.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It sounds awfully personal when you're calling them parasites.

 

Personally, while I am in principle a republican, I find it hard to get too upset about anyone who is preventing us from having a President Blair.

1.  "Parasite" is their job description, not their character.

 

2.  Would you vote for Tony Blair?  I know I wouldn't.  In fact, I know lots of people wouldn't.  I'd like to think that a nation of 63 million people could come up with more than one candidate for the presidency.  As I said to njackets:

That line of argument - "President Jimmy Saville?  Is that what you want?" - is fatuous.  I want the right to have some say in who should be our Head of State. 

Anyone with a real commitment to democracy would say the same.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Plus the poor cow is colour blind.

Unlike her husband...

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Plus the poor cow is colour blind.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

No they don't.

Yes they do.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-do-parliaments-laws-really-need-royal-assent-in-2013-33999.html

 

The necessity for Royal Assent still exists.  It's been treated as a formality for so long, because it would provoke a constitutional crisis (and threaten to end that family's ride on the gravy train) if the Monarch did withhold assent, but the power still exists.  

[Strontium]

1.  "Parasite" is their job description, not their character.

 

2.  Would you vote for Tony Blair?  I know I wouldn't.  In fact, I know lots of people wouldn't.  I'd like to think that a nation of 63 million people could come up with more than one candidate for the presidency.  As I said to njackets:

That line of argument - "President Jimmy Saville?  Is that what you want?" - is fatuous.  I want the right to have some say in who should be our Head of State. 

Anyone with a real commitment to democracy would say the same.

 

 

You're talking about the only person alive who has won more than one general election, the idea that Blair may be unelectable is a bit fanciful, I think.

 

Nevertheless, who else do you think we would be stuck with as head of state if not Blair? Who else has the stature?

 

 

Yes they do.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-do-parliaments-laws-really-need-royal-assent-in-2013-33999.html

 

The necessity for Royal Assent still exists.  It's been treated as a formality for so long, because it would provoke a constitutional crisis (and threaten to end that family's ride on the gravy train) if the Monarch did withhold assent, but the power still exists.  

 

Let us deal with the facts on the ground rather than theoreticals. A power that the monarch can't actually use is no power at all.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I'm a Monarchest, love the Queen bumped into Prince Harry a couple of times whilst serving once when he was a Cadet and once when he was on a course, he's a sound lad.

 

Switch BBC1 on now, would you switch the Queen with David Cameron? Exactly!

 

i reckon if that was true you'd have photo's to back it up.

 

So basically photo's are get to fuck you waffling shite. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You're talking about the only person alive who has won more than one general election, the idea that Blair may be unelectable is a bit fanciful, I think.

 

Nevertheless, who else do you think we would be stuck with as head of state if not Blair? Who else has the stature?

 

 

Let us deal with the facts on the ground rather than theoreticals. A power that the monarch can't actually use is no power at all.

Joey fucking Essex is more electable than a war criminal.  We're talking about hypothetical Presidential elections in the future, not Parliamentary elections in the past.  And we wouldn't be "stuck with" anyone as Head of State (as we are now).  We would choose a President for a fixed term and then choose another one.  (I'm surprised I'm having to explain the concept of democracy to you.)

 

 

As for the "facts on the ground" the fact is that Priory Doctor said that the Monarch gets to sign off - and has a right of veto over - every Act of Parliament.  That is unquestionably true.  It's like buying a sports car on the basis that it can do 180 mph; just because the legal speed limit is 70, doesn't change what the car can do.

[PestiRed]

What type of President do you want? Largely ceremonial or one with real power? If so, what powers do we give him/her?

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Plus the poor cow is colour blind.

I'm blind as well after seeing that outfit on the news this morning.

 

 

[Karl_b]

I got a free victoria sandwich from M&S on Friday due to the Queen's birthday. Best thing the Monarchy ever did for me.

[VladimirIlyich]

I got a free victoria sandwich from M&S on Friday due to the Queen's birthday. Best thing the Monarchy ever did for me.

Splitter.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

What type of President do you want? Largely ceremonial or one with real power? If so, what powers do we give him/her?

Not decided yet. Maybe something akin to what the US President is supposed to be.

 

The fundamental principle is that if someone holds power over you, that power is constrained by the fact that they are ultimately accountable to you.