Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

FrancieBrady

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am certainly no monarchist and it's a frankly a bit sad that you feel the need to call anyone who is pointing out the realpolitik of the situation as it pertains in the UK a 'royalist' Francie.

The reality is the UK's written down on scraps of paper, contained in various legal tomes, and back issues of Hansard Constitution is based on precedent.

And precedent says the monarch in the UK's constitutional monarchy follows the 'advice' of the Privy Council. 'Advice' is just a nice way of saying they do what they are told to do and keep their nose out of the politics.

Yes, it's absurd. But really no less absurd then a system where the method of electing a person who will have a great deal of power, including the wherewithal to literally blow up the world, isn't determined by who got the most individual votes which is what happens in the US.

Or here where the person elected to oversee our written Constitution could possibly never have even read it never mind understand what their role actually entails.

Yeh...well I just get a little bit irritated that these guys (and it is usually the same people) tried to shut down any criticism.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Outlining the facts of the situation is not a 'position'.

My position is that the monarchy is an absurd anachronism that should have zilch power.

You said that the palace (an unelected body) suppressed democracy by doing what the government advised it to do. In what reality is that a fact. You also said the queen should have refused prorogation, again how is this a fact and not your own position? The monarchy system is absurd but the British have worked it so that the royals don't have a lot of if any political power and yet you, an anti-royalist, are suggesting that the Queen should have seized more power for herself by blocking government.

Bannasidhe

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Not sure what that's got to do with the price of fish.

Just a general observation on the general Corbyn = BAD comments that spring up around Brexit - including in this thread.

He didn't do X, or Y, or Z and somehow a lot of things are apparently his fault.

I find that bizarre.

Especially when the actual PM is completely acting the maggot.

It's like when 'leftists' got blamed for the banking crises here.
Unregulated socialists running around in charge of banks or something.

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that the mess has just gotten messier because of a pointless, long since redundant, tier of government.

sure it's quite clear now that the UK's systems of governance are quite absurd and not fit for purpose

FrancieBrady

FunLover18 wrote: »

You said that the palace (an unelected body) suppressed democracy by doing what the government advised it to do. In what reality is that a fact. You also said the queen should have refused prorogation, again how is this a fact and not your own position? The monarchy system is absurd but the British have worked it so that the royals don't have a lot of if any political power and yet you, an anti-royalist, are suggesting that the Queen should have seized more power for herself by blocking government.

My position is that there should be no such thing as a 'monarchy' anywhere and certainly not one with any power.

I am pointing to facts. The only thing stopping the palace from denying the request was convention and the policy of this particular monarch.

That she didn't deny makes her complicit in what happened - fact. And you can have whatever opinion/position of that you want.

MadYaker

So what’s the agenda when parliament sits tomorrow? Bojo won’t be there by the looks of things.

FunLover18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My position is that there should be no such thing as a 'monarchy' anywhere and certainly not one with any power.

I am pointing to facts. The only thing stopping the palace from denying the request was convention and the policy of this particular monarch.

That she didn't deny makes her complicit in what happened - fact. And you can have whatever opinion/position of that you want.

I completely agree with you about Monarchy, it's outdated. But if the UK is to have one, which they are, then I'd rather they have one with as little power as possible. I just want to know how you, as an anti-royalist, can advocate for the royals to have the power to block government, which you said she should have done.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My position is that there should be no such thing as a 'monarchy' anywhere and certainly not one with any power.

I am pointing to facts. The only thing stopping the palace from denying the request was convention and the policy of this particular monarch.

That she didn't deny makes her complicit in what happened - fact. And you can have whatever opinion/position of that you want.

Sweetest divine Francie - the British monarch doesn't have any power. They haven't had any real power since Cromwell had the last monarch who tried to throw his power around beheaded.
And what little they had after that was removed when the Georges arrived. George I didn't even speak English and spent most of his time in Hanover - but you want to have us believe he had a role in running the country?

The worst they can do is peer disapproving over the top of their royal spectacles when the PM is making a spectacle of themselves. And then only strictly in private.

It's been like that for hundreds of years. The Monarch is a figurehead. They are metaphorically 'Great Britain'. Their job is to provide a sense of continuity and give historical weight to the whole precedence fetish. They are PR for the country and a nice day out for tourists and natives alike.

What they are not are rulers in any sense of the word. The most they can hope for is being behind the scenes advisors who can safely be ignored should the government wish.

Our role of President is based on the British monarchy - and has a teensy bit more 'power' in that the president can refuse to sign legislation if they think it is unconstitutional. Monarch can't even do that. They have to 'sign here, and here. Initial there' whatever legislation is passed by parliament.

tigger123

MadYaker wrote: »

So what’s the agenda when parliament sits tomorrow? Bojo won’t be there by the looks of things.

Apparently he's flying home early from New York to be there.

Ash.J.Williams

Should we change our president to high king?

RobMc59

FunLover18 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My position is that there should be no such thing as a 'monarchy' anywhere and certainly not one with any power.

I am pointing to facts. The only thing stopping the palace from denying the request was convention and the policy of this particular monarch.

That she didn't deny makes her complicit in what happened - fact. And you can have whatever opinion/position of that you want.

I completely agree with you about Monarchy, it's outdated. But if the UK is to have one, which they are, then I'd rather they have one with as little power as possible. I just want to know how you, as an anti-royalist, can advocate for the royals to have the power to block government, which you said she should have done.

Sadly,some people will criticise and attempt to belittle purely because they are full of hatred for the UK.
Admittedly,many members of the Royal family divide opinions(Andrew for a start) But the Queen is an asset to Britain imo and is respected in many countries.

26000 Elephants

tigger123 wrote: »

Apparently he's flying home early from New York to be there.

They should have reinstated Concorde years ago. The Billions spent would have been worth it for this moment alone, getting BoJo before Parliament a few hours sooner....

Igotadose

Boris doing a speech to a business group about cauliflowers and how Americans haven't eaten any British Lamb, or haggis.

Sigh. No questions taken. Coward.

First Up

Igotadose wrote:

Boris doing a speech to a business group about cauliflowers and how Americans haven't eaten any British Lamb, or haggis. Once the speech is done, I expect he'll be getting some questions about today's events from the UK media.

Don't think the media will get the opportunity there.

He got all excited about how the UK could now incentivise business by tax cuts, omitting of course to mention they were free to set any tax rates they liked as an EU member.

droidman123

RobMc59 wrote: »

Sadly,some people will criticise and attempt to belittle purely because they are full of hatred for the UK.
Admittedly,many members of the Royal family divide opinions(Andrew for a start) But the Queen is an asset to Britain imo and is respected in many countries.

Those many countries that respect her most likely havnt suffered the atrociites committed by her ancestors

tigger123

Always drives me mad when people refer to countries as "her".

Countries don't have gender, FFS!

Sorry - you were referring to the Queen, who does have a gender, but we probably mustn't assume it

mattser

droidman123 wrote: »

Those many countries that respect her most likely havnt suffered the atrociites committed by her ancestors

She had a spectaculary welcome visit to these parts a few years ago, if my memory serves me. All bar a handful of diehards enjoyed her visit.l

droidman123

mattser wrote: »

She had a spectaculary welcome visit to these parts a few years ago, if my memory serves me. All bar a handful of diehards enjoyed her visit.l

Well why didnt they do a drive around with her like they do in canada and australia and the likes?

threeball

Surely Rees Mogg has to fall on his sword here. His position as I understand it means he not only has a duty to the government but to parliament as a whole and so should have acted in the interests of the house and argued against the prorogation. Instead he was cheerleader in chief. I think in this case its either going to be him or Boris for the chop and they'll hardly want the glorious leader to fall after 5 or 6 weeks.

VinLieger

droidman123 wrote: »

Well why didnt they do a drive around with her like they do in canada and australia and the likes?

Because they are part of the commonwealth which she is the head of.

droidman123

VinLieger wrote: »

Because they are part of the commonwealth which she is the head of.

But we are not,so back to my question,why do you think they didnt do a drive around o,connell street and the city centre if as mattser said,she was very welcome here?

mattser

droidman123 wrote: »

But we are not,so back to my question,why do you think they didnt do a drive around o,connell street and the city centre if as mattser said,she was very welcome here?

I think she forgot her driving licence !!

droidman123

mattser wrote: »

I think she forgot her driving licence !!

But dont you think it would of been nice for her and all the welcoming public i,m sure would of been waving union jacks along the route? Why do you think they didnt do this?

mattser

droidman123 wrote: »

But dont you think it would of been nice for her and all the welcoming public i,m sure would of been waving union jacks along the route? Why do you think they didnt do this?

One thing at a time. Perhaps she'll cartwheel down O'Connell St next time.

VinLieger

droidman123 wrote: »

But dont you think it would of been nice for her and all the welcoming public i,m sure would of been waving union jacks along the route? Why do you think they didnt do this?

What answer are you looking for?

droidman123

mattser wrote: »

One thing at a time. Perhaps she'll cartwheel down O'Connell St next time.

Ok so no answer

droidman123

VinLieger wrote: »

What answer are you looking for?

My post and question is quite clear

VinLieger

droidman123 wrote: »

My post and question is quite clear

As was my original answer, Canada and Australia which you referenced are part of the commonwealth which is why she drives around in that way, we are not a member so why would she do that here?


You are quite obviously pointedly asking the question in a way as to garner a specific answer from someone so what answer is it exactly you are looking for?

droidman123

VinLieger wrote: »

As was my original answer, Canada and Australia which you referenced are part of the commonwealth which is why she drives around in that way, we are not a member so why would she do that here?


You are quite obviously pointedly asking the question in a way as to garner a specific answer from someone so what answer is it exactly you are looking for?

The point i am making is that maybe she wasnt as welcome here as mattser suggested,mostly only welcomed by politicians and various hat doffers

Timberrrrrrrr

droidman123 wrote: »

But we are not,so back to my question,why do you think they didnt do a drive around o,connell street and the city centre if as mattser said,she was very welcome here?

Because of cnuts like this maybe?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-38332494

A 66-year-old man who made bomb threats during the Queen's visit to Ireland has been sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison.

Irish police received a call from Donal Billings in May 2011 , saying there was a bomb on a bus in Maynooth.

A bag was found on the bus holding a bomb, gunpowder, petrol, a timing-power unit, battery and a fuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/police-say-viable-bomb-found-on-bus-made-safe-before-queens-visit-to-ireland/2011/05/17/AFtdtX5G_story.html

DUBLIN — Police and Army officials say a bomb found on a bus has been made safe Tuesday, hours before Queen Elizabeth II was due to arrive in Dublin.

The device was found in the luggage compartment of a bus traveling on the outskirts of Maynooth in County Kildare west of Dublin, officials said.