Is America treating the UK like a colony?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

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.

The British monarch has powers, as outlined above and recently discussed by senior parliamentarians.

No amount of deflection will change the fact that you were again wrong.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British monarch has powers, as outlined above and recently discussed by senior parliamentarians.

No amount of deflection will change the fact that you were again wrong.

This has been debated before, the power she has is relatively small. When was the last time she made a difference in politics? Nobody even knows what party if any she supports. She is more a tourist attraction or someone who may cut a ribbon at an opening event or whatever than anything else.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Ah well, we are used to your tactics now.

Who claimed the monarch has no powers?

She has power, for as long as parliament decides she has no power.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

This has been debated before, the power she has is relatively small. When was the last time she made a difference in politics? Nobody even knows what party if any she supports. She is more a tourist attraction or someone who may cut a ribbon at an opening event or whatever than anything else.

So...you blithely switch from 'no power' to 'relatively small power'. Brilliant.

The monarch has enough power to grind the UK to a halt and into crisis.

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

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Who claimed the monarch has no powers?

She has power, for as long as parliament decides she has no power.

Janfebmar did, although she is now hastily rowing back from that position.

She can invoke these powers without assent from Parliament.

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

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Janfebmar did,

I compared the power of heads of state - Not the Queen specifically - to the power of parliament. It is parliaments who have the real power.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I compared the power of heads of state - Not the Queen specifically - to the power of parliament. It is parliaments who have the real power.

And the monarch has the power to prorogue parliament and to stop it convening at all. Fact.

What happens if the monarch does that is besides the point.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the monarch has the power to prorogue parliament and to stop it convening at all. Fact.

What happens if the monarch does that is besides the point.

I dunno, tell me, that evil British Parliament will throw her in the mental hospital?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I dunno, tell me, that evil British Parliament will throw her in the mental hospital?

I'd like to see the parliamentarian who would try to censure the current incumbent in the present atmosphere. The Brexiteer class would be out with spikes and machetes.

The lunacy of having a monarchy in the modern age.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd like to see the parliamentarian who would try to censure the current incumbent in the present atmosphere. The Brexiteer class would be out with spikes and machetes.

The lunacy of having a monarchy in the modern age.

She is a much more successful tourist attraction than Michael D anyway. I never heard you complaining about the specific royalty in other countries ( eg Spain, Greece, Holland, Sweden etc etc) but every few days you are whinging about how and who the British have as head of state?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

She is a much more successful tourist attraction than Michael D anyway. I never heard you complaining about the specific royalty in other countries ( eg Spain, Greece, Holland, Sweden etc etc) but every few days you are whinging about how and who the British have as head of state?

I am not really bothered with your obsessive hate of all things Irish when compared to the 'much superior' British version jan.

I have the same opinion of hereditary monarchies everywhere - anachronistic obscenities.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not really bothered with your obsessive hate of all things Irish when compared to the 'much superior' British version .

There is not an Irish version of Royalty Francis. Your hatred of all things British is quite amazing - I try to see the good and bad in each country and to be fair.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There is not an Irish version of Royalty Francis. Your hatred of all things British is quite amazing - I try to see the good and bad in each country and to be fair.

A monarch is a head of state as is our President (the one you abuse at every opportunity).
Your attachment of some 'specialness' to an ordinary woman is your own business. Royalty is an invention, blue blood doesn't really exist, you do know this?

Duckworth_Luas

janfebmar wrote: »

I try to see the good and bad in each country and to be fair.

Timberrrrrrrr

janfebmar wrote: »

She is a much more successful tourist attraction than Michael D anyway. I never heard you complaining about the specific royalty in other countries ( eg Spain, Greece, Holland, Sweden etc etc) but every few days you are whinging about how and who the British have as head of state?

He never posted in a sports thread until.the world cup tread about England and he was all over that like a rash.

He's still highly disappointed there was no trouble from the england fans.

It's like he has some sort of agenda

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A monarch is a head of state as is our President (the one you abuse at every opportunity).
Your attachment of some 'specialness' to an ordinary woman is your own business. Royalty is an invention, blue blood doesn't really exist, you do know this?

Royalty does not both me much one way or the other, I do not get hot and bothered about it like you.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He never posted in a sports thread until.the world cup tread about England and he was all over that like a rash.

He's still highly disappointed there was no trouble from the england fans.

It's like he has some sort of agenda

I post in sports threads all the time Timbs. I don't post in the soccer forum because it's a bit like being in with the worst of English supporters.

Plenty of trouble from English supporters recently, in fact there is a thread on it and I see a certain poster all over it...defending and deflecting. :D

You guys are gas at digging holes for yourselves.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Royalty does not both me much one way or the other, I do not get hot and bothered about it like you.

Nor do I. Until somebody starts lying about the power it has in Britain and flip flopping when it is proved otherwise.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nor do I.

Lol You have such a hatred for the British and their monarchy you have 20,000 posts sniping at them.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Lol You have such a hatred for the British and their monarchy you have 20,000 posts sniping at them.

:D:D:D As said earlier...lying comes far too easily to you.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D:D As said earlier...lying comes far too easily to you.

I must have hit a nerve there with you lol.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I must have hit a nerve there with you lol.

No more than all the other times you have lied about what has been said.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No more than all the other times you have lied about what has been said.

Lol. Post 669 is just so funny, when you say you do not get hot and bothered about the royalty, insinuating they do not bother you either. Yet you are an Irish Republican version of a cross between lord haw haw and Comical Ali.:D

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I post in sports threads all the time Timbs. I don't post in the soccer forum because it's a bit like being in with the worst of English supporters.

Plenty of trouble from English supporters recently, in fact there is a thread on it and I see a certain poster all over it...defending and deflecting. :D

You guys are gas at digging holes for yourselves.

Show me a post where i have defended them if that's what you are implying.

Not a peep out of you when the french fans rioted after winning.

As i said, it's as if you have some sort of agenda

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Show me a post where i have defended them if that's what you are implying.

Not a peep out of you when the french fans rioted after winning.

As i said, it's as if you have some sort of agenda

Not a peep out of me on that thread either. But WHO is on there deflecting to defend...might be a better way of putting it. Pointing all around at themuns over there as well.

Funny boy Timberrr, suppose you will be calling your contributions on here as 'fair and balanced too'?

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not a peep out of me on that thread either. But WHO is on there deflecting to defend...might be a better way of putting it. Pointing all around at themuns over there as well.

Funny boy Timberrr, suppose you will be calling your contributions on here as 'fair and balanced too'?

Again frankie, if.you are implying that i am defending football hooligans then say it out straight and post a link to where i have done it.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again frankie, if.you are implying that i am defending football hooligans then say it out straight and post a link to where i have done it.

Let me get this straight first. You are saying you weren't deflecting from the English violence by pointing at the Irish and other teams?

janfebmar

It is certainly not me defending football hooligans anyway, if that is what Francis is implying. It is almost as if he (francis) has a kind of agenda.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let me get this straight first. You are saying you weren't deflecting from the English violence by pointing at the Irish and other teams?

Frankie, that's not deflecting, that's making a point.

Otherwise we could say 90% of your posts are deflection simply because they start with the words "ah but the British did this"

:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Frankie, that's not deflecting, that's making a point.

Otherwise we could say 90% of your posts are deflection simply because they start with the words "ah but the British did this"

:rolleyes:

So misrepresent again. Do you guys get a prize or something when you do that?

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So misrepresent again. Do you guys get a prize or something when you do that?

Your anti-everything-English agenda has finally tipped you over the edge i see, what's that like frankie? Letting hatred take over your life like that?

You have my pity.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Your anti-everything-English agenda has finally tipped you over the edge i see, what's that like frankie? Letting hatred take over your life like that?

You have my pity.

Telling the truth about the powers the monarch has to a serial bluffer is not hate of the British Timbs...it is a hate of mistruths and nonsense.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Telling the truth about the powers the monarch has to a serial bluffer is not hate of the British Timbs...it is a hate of mistruths and nonsense.

Nah frankie, everyone sees and knows your agenda at this stage, you're fooling no one.

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Telling the truth about the powers the monarch has to a serial bluffer is not hate of the British Timbs...it is a hate of mistruths and nonsense.

Nah frankie, everyone sees and knows your agenda at this stage, you're fooling no one.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nah frankie, everyone sees and knows your agenda at this stage, you're fooling no one.

So explain to everybody how stating the truth is 'hate'??

Timberrrrrrrr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So explain to everybody how stating the truth is 'hate'??

She "could" do this/that/the other, hasnt been used in 300 years but frankie drags it up as a viable arguement to push his agenda

Laughable even for you.

FrancieBrady

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She "could" do this/that/the other, hasnt been used in 300 years but frankie drags it up as a viable arguement to push his agenda

Laughable even for you.

What agenda? Telling the truth is a sinister agenda now?

When you consider the US team who will be overseeing any future trade negotiations, the UK had better tred very carefully.

_blaaz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When you consider the US team who will be overseeing any future trade negotiations, the UK had better tred very carefully.

The uk are the only country in the world who think its wise to persue a trade agreement with donald trump :pac:

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

When you consider the US team who will be overseeing any future trade negotiations, the UK had better tred very carefully.
]

Did you not hear...it's gonna be the greatest trade deal ever.