Is America treating the UK like a colony?

_blaaz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The queen (like the irish president) is a figurhead and does not make decisions on the day to day running of the state.

She is however unelected and to.me an unelected head of state (or any government/state position) is obscene and should be subject to the electorate

Timberrrrrrrr

_blaaz wrote: »

Their shouldnt be any monarchy....its obscene the notion of it



Much like its obscene to know about concentration camps for years and do nothing about them until ww2 was winding down

What do you think should have been done? Bare in mind it wasn't just the British who had this information.

Timberrrrrrrr

_blaaz wrote: »

She is however unelected and to.me an unelected head of state (or any government/state position) is obscene and should be subject to the electorate

And again, varadkar is unelected, where is your anger at this?

threeball

janfebmar wrote: »

The allies done something about it, a lot more than Devalera did, but the extermination camps were in eastern Poland, well out of range of bombers. The nazi war machine had to be defeated to stop Nazi policy. Something like 30,000 raf airmen , some of whom where Irish, did lose their lives as it was.

Something like 450,000 British people lost their lives as a result of the fight against Nazism. When the full horrors of the extermination camps became evident to the world in Spring of 1945, everyone was horrified. Everyone except Devalera, who insisted on sending condolences on the death of Hitler.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_5.html&ved=2ahUKEwirq9HIktziAhXgQxUIHSi5D2IQFjAKegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3nZwEW_hf2ehjblWS5llpV&cshid=1560074851146


Have a read. You might learn something for once

_blaaz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And again, varadkar is unelected, where is your anger at this?

Except he is elected as a td?

And its the dail (ie elected td)who decides who is taoiseach....your lack.of understanding of basic democratic protocols is concerning.....(much like how thersea may replacement as prime.minister wont be elected by public but by westminister)


Fwiw he wont be taoiseach.after next election imo

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Their shouldnt be any monarchy....its obscene the notion of it



Much like its obscene to know about concentration camps for years and do nothing about them until ww2 was winding down

Each country can do as it like if it does not upset others. Those European countries that have royalty like the UK, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc etc seem generally to have populations who like their royalty, or at least do not mind. In the UK it brings in revenue and tourism. I personally would not like to be royalty, you could never go for a walk by yourself or have privacy or freedom.

What was more obscene than Royalty in Europe was certain Republicans reaction to fascism in Europe.

Wanderer78

_blaaz wrote:

Fwiw he wont be taoiseach.after next election imo

Could be Micky martin alright, or whoever is leading ff

Timberrrrrrrr

_blaaz wrote: »

Except he is elected as a td?

And its the dail (ie elected td)who decides who is taoiseach....your lack.of understanding of basic democratic protocols is concerning.....(much like how thersea may replacement as prime.minister wont be elected by public but by westminister)


Fwiw he wont be taoiseach.after next election imo

Leo didnt even get the most votes

On 2 June 2017, Varadkar was elected leader of Fine Gael, defeating Simon Coveney.[32] Although Coveney had the support of more Fine Gael members than Varadkar, the electoral college system more strongly weighted the votes of the party's parliamentarians, with these strongly backing Varadkar.

Pretty much the same way Trump got in, seems you're only angry at other countries "undemocratic" ways if doing things.

FrancieBrady

threeball wrote: »

Ireland didn't know anything about the horrors of the concentration camps, the Brits on the other hand did and chose to do nothing. Don't dress it up like you were fighting the war to save the Jews. Your government knew what was happening and turned a blind eye.

Instead of implementing the Treaty Of Versailles after WW1 Churchill argued vehemently against the French occupying the industrial heartland of Germany to enforce reparations.
So on the side of the Germans was Churchill at that time, that Hitler repeatedly said to Albert Speer and others that the 'British were our brothers, why fight our brothers'.

Peas in a pod, before Churchill saw or was made to see, the error of his ways, along with the British royalty who also had to be stopped fraternising with the Nazis.

_blaaz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Leo didnt even get the most votes




Pretty much the same way Trump got in, seems you're only angry at other countries "undemocratic" ways if doing things.

I pretty much agree he shouldnt be leader of fg tbh...


But however you seem to be wanting to ignore the taoiseach is elected by the dail?(which is a differnt vote to one you referenced?)

Something very trumpism about ignoring facts that dont suit you

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Each country can do as it like if it does not upset others. Those European countries that have royalty like the UK, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc etc seem generally to have populations who like their royalty, or at least do not mind. In the UK it brings in revenue and tourism. I personally would not like to be royalty, you could never go for a walk by yourself or have privacy or freedom.

What was more obscene than Royalty in Europe was certain Republicans reaction to fascism in Europe.

Tbh in view anyway....countries that dont elect their head of state and rely on it being an obscene inherited position arent fully democratic

_blaaz

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Could be Micky martin alright, or whoever is leading ff

More than likely.....but wont be solid government

Wanderer78

_blaaz wrote:

Tbh in view anyway....countries that dont elect their head of state and rely on it being an obscene inherited position arent fully democratic

Is there really such a thing as a fully democratic state?

Wanderer78

_blaaz wrote:

More than likely.....but wont be solid government

Yea I'd say so to, I have a funny feeling we ll see a flip flop, with ff the stronger party, and another deal done with fg

_blaaz

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Is there really such a thing as a fully democratic state?

Swiss are probably closest tbf

But have no coastline

Wanderer78

_blaaz wrote:

Swiss are probably closest tbf

I've heard this before, I must look into it

Timberrrrrrrr

_blaaz wrote: »

I pretty much agree he shouldnt be leader of fg tbh...


But however you seem to be wanting to ignore the taoiseach is elected by the dail?(which is a differnt vote to one you referenced?)

Something very trumpism about ignoring facts that dont suit you

Trump was elected by the EC in pretty much the same way varadkar was, why are you not marching onnthe Dail demanding his removal?

And fwiw i despise Trump and would be very happy if he was removed (impeached) tomorrow.

_blaaz

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yea I'd say so to, I have a funny feeling we ll see a flip flop, with ff the stronger party, and another deal done with fg

I think fg will get more seats....but martin is a better deal maker and prob find enough independants to form a government

Possibly a supply/confidnece with a weakened sinn fein party to shore up numbers.....fg have done their upmost to alienate any potential coalition parties last few years.....at best micheal martin governemnt will last 3 years

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump was elected by the EC in pretty much the same way varadkar was, why are you not marching onnthe Dail demanding his removal?

And fwiw i despise Trump and would be very happy if he was removed (impeached) tomorrow.

Is he/she marching on the US senate?
Somebody made an observation...calm down there Timbss.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Tbh in view anyway....countries that dont elect their head of state and rely on it being an obscene inherited position arent fully democratic

Lol. You have a lot to learn. According to you, the likes of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia. Sweden', Spain, New Zealand etc are not democratic countries. I wonder why most of the millions of Irish people who have emigrated have gone to those very countries. Must have been because of a devious plan by those dastardly British again.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is he/she marching on the US senate?
Somebody made an observation...calm down there Timbss.

It seems he is ok with irelands undemocraticly elected leader but has a hissy fit over others. Typical AH rabble rabble rabble i suppose.

_blaaz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump was elected by the EC in pretty much the same way varadkar was, why are you not marching onnthe Dail demanding his removal?

And fwiw i despise Trump and would be very happy if he was removed (impeached) tomorrow.

Id be happy to see both removed


However as im not a member of fg or unlikely to ever join....its election process for leaders is irrelevant to me???


However why do you seem to wish to ignore the somewhat glaring fact that is the dail which elected varadkar as taoiseach and not the FG electoral collage(these ECs are inherently undemocratic imo)??

Wanderer78

_blaaz wrote:

Possibly a supply/confidnece with a weakened sinn fein party to shore up numbers.....fg have done their upmost to alienate any potential coalition parties last few years.....at best micheal martin governemnt will last 3 years

You could be right, but I think sf are screwed, it ll be an interesting one

_blaaz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It seems he is ok with irelands undemocraticly elected leader but has a hissy fit over others. Typical AH rabble rabble rabble i suppose.

Meh...im hardly at fault you dont understand workings of the dail...or that varadkar isnt head of the irish state (it is mikey d) who is elected by majority...unlike trump.or the queen

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It seems he is ok with irelands undemocraticly elected leader but has a hissy fit over others. Typical AH rabble rabble rabble i suppose.

But 'marching' on the Dail...were did that come from if not from the 'AH rabble rabble rabble' drawer.

Calm Timbs...calm. :cool:

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Lol. You have a lot to learn. According to you, the likes of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia. Sweden', Spain, New Zealand etc are not democratic countries. I wonder why most of the millions of Irish people who have emigrated have gone to those very countries. Must have been because of a devious plan by those dastardly British again.

They are not fully democratic or as democratic as ireland....if they dont elect head of state imo



Quite why you think an unelected head of state is democratic,is bizzare mate

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

They are not fully democratic or as democratic as ireland....if they dont elect head of state imo



Quite why you think an unelected head of state is democratic is bizzare mate

Because the heads of state have no power. It is their parliaments that have the power.

In corrupt countries (of course Ireland could never be considered to be the slightest bit corrupt) it is not heads of state who get backhanders and brown envelopes, it is politicians.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Because the heads of state have no power. It is their parliaments that have the power.

In corrupt countries (of course Ireland could never be considered to be the slightest bit corrupt) it is not heads of state who get backhanders and brown envelopes, it is politicians.

Meh....keep defending undemocratic heads of state all you want....deosnt seem any logic to it though

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Meh....keep defending undemocratic heads of state all you want....deosnt seem any logic to it though

I would look closer to home and be more concerned about heads of government not being fully democratic, in that they may have taken backhanders ,like Haughey and " I won it on de horses" Ahern.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Because the heads of state have no power. It is their parliaments that have the power.

The monarch does have a great deal of power...withholding royal assent, refusing to open Parliament and prorogation of parliament for example.
If you had been paying attention to reality you would have heard Brexiteers calling on her to use those powers.

The fact that the current monarch chooses not to use those powers does not mean they don't exist.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The monarch does have a great deal of power...withholding royal assent, refusing to open Parliament and prorogation of parliament for example.
If you had been paying attention to reality you would have heard Brexiteers calling on her to use those powers.

The fact that the current monarch chooses not to use those powers does not mean they don't exist.

Who is sovereign in the UK?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact that the current monarch chooses not to use those powers does not mean they don't exist.

The current Monarch trained as a mechanic in ww2, but that does not mean she services the car in 2019

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Who is sovereign in the UK?

Does the monarch have;
A. The power to refuse Royal assent?
B. The power to prorogue Parliament?
C. The power not to open a Parliamentary session?

Yes or no will do here.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does the monarch have;
A. The power to refuse Royal assent?
B. The power to prorogue Parliament?
C. The power not to open a Parliamentary session?

Yes or no will do here.

why are you dodging my question Francie?

Who is Sovereign in the UK?

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

why are you dodging my question Francie?

Who is Sovereign in the UK?

The monarch is in respect of the following, if she/he chooses to:

A. refuse Royal assent.
B. prorogue Parliament.
C. not open a Parliamentary session.

If you can deny that these powers exist...fire away anytime suits you.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I would look closer to home and be more concerned about heads of government not being fully democratic, in that they may have taken backhanders ,like Haughey and " I won it on de horses" Ahern.

Meh....keep cheering on undemocratic practices and rambling incoherently about elected politians


You are good at it....kinda like how you cheered on north korean democracy earlier until.questioned about it

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The monarch is in respect of the following, if she/he chooses to:

A. refuse Royal assent.
B. prorogue Parliament.
C. not open a Parliamentary session.

If you can deny that these powers exist...fire away anytime suits you.

let me answer this for you Francie shall I, as the words seem to have got stuck in your throat.

In the UK, Parliament is Sovereign. It is the supreme power and the only power that can enact or revoke laws.

A bill has to have royal assent to become an act of Parliament, but this hasn't been refused since 1707 and if a present monarch decided not to give it, Parliament could just pass a law saying that Royal assent does not have to be given. Something it can do because Parliament is Sovereign.

In case you are wondering what happens to Monarchs who cross parliament, here's a little Wikipedia article to help you out.

_blaaz

Aegir wrote: »

let me answer this for you Francie shall I, as the words seem to have got stuck in your throat.

In the UK, Parliament is Sovereign. It is the supreme power and the only power that can enact or revoke laws.

A bill has to have royal assent to become an act of Parliament, but this hasn't been refused since 1707 and if a present monarch decided not to give it, Parliament could just pass a law saying that Royal assent does not have to be given. Something it can do because Parliament is Sovereign.

In case you are wondering what happens to Monarchs who cross parliament, here's a little Wikipedia article to help you out.

Did the queen not 1 time sack the oz parliment??

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

A bill has to have royal assent to become an act of Parliament,

So finally, you admit it in a round about sniveling way.

The monarch STILL has powers regardless if they have used them or not. Get back to us when parliament gets around to removing those powers.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Meh....keep cheering on undemocratic practices and rambling incoherently about elected politians


You are good at it....kinda like how you cheered on north korean democracy earlier until.questioned about it

I was being sarcastic about the lads you defend ( the IRA ) who went on a training mission to North Korea at one stage. Obviously it went over your head, you probably would have difficulty finding North Korea on a map of the world given your lack of knowledge of history.

NB. the IRA lads did not get on too well in North Korea. Google it and see. The food was very bad and the early morning starts in camp did not suit either.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So finally, you admit it in a round about sniveling way.

The monarch STILL has powers regardless if they have used them or not. Get back to us when parliament gets around to removing those powers.

The monarch has those powers, because parliament gives them to her. They can take them away as well Francis.

So, how about you answer my question.

Who is sovereign in the UK?

FrancieBrady

If she/he refused to open parliament......

Now, you have answered the question... The monarch has powers. I'm at the match...go away and think of a new question, as they say.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I was being sarcastic about the lads you defend ( the IRA ) who went on a training mission to North Korea at one stage. Obviously it went over your head, you probably would have difficulty finding North Korea on a map of the world given your lack of knowledge of history.

NB. the IRA lads did not get on too well in North Korea. Google it and see. The food was very bad and the early morning starts in camp did not suit either.

Meh.....pretend all you want....you were bigging up north korea and only when called out...did you slither behind claims of sarcasm



Makes a change from you screaming republicanism.at anyone who questions you i guess......also nowhere have i ever defended the ira either

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If she/he refused to open parliament......

Then parliament would find a new monarch.

[quote="FrancieBrady;110391288"Now, you have answered the question... The monarch has powers. I'm at the match...go away and think of a new question, as they say.[/quote]

The question wasn’t does the Monarch have powers Fran, it was who is sovereign. A question you still haven’t answered.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Then parliament would find a new monarch.

What parliament? The one that meets illegally?

The question wasn’t does the Monarch have powers Fran, it was who is sovereign. A question you still haven’t answered.

It was answered, parliament is indeed sovereign as long as the monarch does not invoke powers the monarchy still has.

You can keep denying these powers exist for as long as you want. Within the last two years Brexiteers have called on the monarch to use them too.

But even those who lament the monarch’s primacy in Britain’s constitution, like this newspaper, cannot deny that it exists. It is not craven deference to note that the prime minister is a crown appointment and many functions of government are performed by royal prerogative. Those are facts. Inevitably, when parliament looks incapable of navigating through a crisis, the power vested in the crown becomes relevant. Jacob Rees-Mogg identified that simple truth when he suggested that parliament could be prorogued to prevent MPs legislating to obstruct a no-deal Brexit. It was a fanatical suggestion but one that invokes a real mechanism. On this trajectory, it is only a matter of time before the Queen finds her position dangerously politicised. It is surely to avert that outcome that she has spoken now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-queen-and-brexit-a-crisis-in-the-making

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What parliament? The one that meets illegally?





It was answered, parliament is indeed sovereign as long as the monarch does not invoke powers the monarchy still has.

You can keep denying these powers exist for as long as you want. Within the last two years Brexiteers have called on the monarch to use them too.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-queen-and-brexit-a-crisis-in-the-making

In practice, the Queen is above politics. My aunt could become my uncle and my uncle could become my aunt if they both had sex change operations, but at their stage of life, I do not think it is likely. If they were 50 years younger, maybe.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In practice, the Queen is above politics. My aunt could become my uncle and my uncle could become my aunt if they both had sex change operations, but at their stage of life, I do not think it is likely. If they were 50 years younger, maybe.

She isn't, and has powers if she chooses to use them.(Don't go digging yourself another hole, it is there in black and white)
What we have seen in the breaking down, rudderless and paralysed UK since Brexit leads me to believe anything is possible.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She isn't, and has powers if she chooses to use them.(Don't go digging yourself another hole, it is there in black and white)
What we have seen in the breaking down, rudderless and paralysed UK since Brexit leads me to believe anything is possible.

My aunt and uncle have powers to change both their genders too if they choose. The way they are behaving out in the nursing home leads me to believe anything is possible.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

My aunt and uncle have powers to change both their genders too if they choose. The way they are behaving out in the nursing home leads me to believe anything is possible.

Still deflecting from wrongly claiming the monarchy 'had no powers'?

Ah well, we are used to your tactics now.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still deflecting from wrongly claiming the monarchy 'had no powers'?

.

Comparatively speaking, heads of state have no power. It is the parliament that has the power. If you want to change things, you get elected, take up your seats in parliament, and that is how you change things. No use sitting at home and not taking up your seat and then whinging about the head of state.