Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:Guys, this thread is supposed to be about how awesome the Queen is, not how rubbish the constitution of the country we didn't want so gave away is

Yeah, but wouldn't a piece of paper just be more awesome than Ye Olde Queenie, is kind of where we ended up, or at least where I ended up.

Iron Maiden should have played at the concert. I wasn't so keen on Madness editing Our House so it was more repetitive, but hey-ho.
And Will.I.Am looked like a complete tool as usual.

dæl wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Guys, this thread is supposed to be about how awesome the Queen is, not how rubbish the constitution of the country we didn't want so gave away is

Yeah, but wouldn't a piece of paper just be more awesome than Ye Olde Queenie, is kind of where we ended up, or at least where I ended up.

I'd much rather have queenie to be perfectly honest with you. And I'm not exactly a royalist either. Just one of the generally content quiet majority.

Well I think that the shout that went up for "Phil the Greek" summed it up nicely". There's a lot of love for the Royals out there.

As to the Republican debate? No matter how you look at it, you would have to vote for someone and that's the crux of the matter. All they will be interested in is getting your vote nothing else. At least with the Royals, they have no power and they have been shown that they do react to bad press. So you have a system in place that has been around for hundreds of years that works. Having a President will mean the involvment of politics and it would go downhill from there.

It's like the whole Lords reform that they want. How would that work? The idea is that the Lords acts as a block to the government, going downa voting route would open up a real can or worms. If you idea all other parties and just have the main 3 ones, you would then have to have a system that divides the seating up equally and so no party has a majority. How would you then vote them in? If you open it up to a general vote you could have a House of Lords that is full of toadies of the current government so that they have a clean sweep.

It's an odd thing in the UK, things just "work". No political party had any right to lay claim to the Jubilee celebrations, it happened because it's a British thing.

Wolfstan wrote:Well I think that the shout that went up for "Phil the Greek" summed it up nicely". There's a lot of love for the Royals out there.

Among those at the celebrations.

As to the Republican debate? No matter how you look at it, you would have to vote for someone and that's the crux of the matter. All they will be interested in is getting your vote nothing else. At least with the Royals, they have no power and they have been shown that they do react to bad press. So you have a system in place that has been around for hundreds of years that works. Having a President will mean the involvment of politics and it would go downhill from there.

Royals do have power, a lot more than people realise, they pass all laws, and what they ask for in return is always done behind closed doors. Do you not think it funny that we are protecting the non native royal favourite pheasant by destroying the indigenous buzzard?
So being accountable and wanting people's approval is bad, but reacting to bad press is good?
Slavery worked for hundreds of years too. (btw they aren't comparable, but I'm just proving somethings long standing existence doesn't make it morally justifiable)

It's like the whole Lords reform that they want. How would that work? The idea is that the Lords acts as a block to the government, going downa voting route would open up a real can or worms. If you idea all other parties and just have the main 3 ones, you would then have to have a system that divides the seating up equally and so no party has a majority. How would you then vote them in? If you open it up to a general vote you could have a House of Lords that is full of toadies of the current government so that they have a clean sweep.

Who needs democracy eh? I mean royalty are selected by God and who are we mere mortals to argue. And it's not like the hereditary peers of the lords made their fortunes in unsavoury manners all those centuries ago. So yeah, they're good, and lets add a few that give money to fund political parties campaigns, we need them in the House of Lords too.

mattyrm wrote:I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?

Despite taking no particular side in this debate, I can't resist pointing out the deficiencies in this so-called "logic bomb".

Buckingham Palace visitor figures: 600,000 per annum. Cost of entry: £18 (I shall generously assume every visitor is an adult paying the full price.). Corporation tax rate: 24%.

Result: (600,000 x £18)/24 = £2,592,000. That's about less than a tenth of your estimate, even presuming that Buck House deducts absolutely no expenses from its profits. In practice, the figure will be vastly lower even than that, once the costs of commercial staff, advertising, insurance, security and business expenses have been deducted. So remind me: who must have flunked maths?

I also presume that you have never been to Paris. If you had, you might have noticed that Versailles is still quite the draw for tourists (2.5 million visitors per annum) despite no king having been in residence since 1789...

azazel the cat wrote:I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.

I understand it completely. I just recognize that the court isn't going to do anything about it. Without enforcement the provision is meaningless.

azazel the cat wrote:I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.

I wouldn't. Tort lawyers generally don't do contracts.

azazel the cat wrote:And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?

Then you don't understand the political question doctrine. Then again, most Americans don't either.

Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?

The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.

I think the problem with the Republican argument is that its trying to apply logic to something that's not logical. If you look at the cold hard facts then yeah, the monarchy most likely does cost more money than it earns, whilst the Queen does pay taxes they most likely don't cover all the expenses. However the monarchy is not there as a cash cow, it is supposed to be a focal point of pride and national identify not just for the UK but the entire Commonwealth realms. If you replace it with a President you surrender something that ours, the Monarchy is a symbol of our country, surrendering it is like giving up your heart for a mechanical replacement, it works, but its not right. Being British is not about being logical, we still drive on the proper side of the road whilst almost everyone else doesn't, Imperial measurement is still used despite attempts by the government and EU and like the Monarchy these things are ours, it may not be logical but damn it when does being British mean being 100% logical, were not robots but human being and sometimes cold hard facts are not enough, and its this reason the Monarchy will be here to stay.

Also a more logical line of reasoning, if you do replace the Monarch with a president won't the costs still be the same? Because you'll still have to pay them, their staff, their expenses, the upkeep of there presidential palace or whatever. So the cost will still be the same, except we'd just be paying for some scumbag politician (granted not all politicians are bad but the overwhelming majority are).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the last time a monarch refused to sign a law was the Scottish militia act in 1708, and even then that was on the advice of her ministers.

Lord Bingo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the last time a monarch refused to sign a law was the Scottish militia act in 1708, and even then that was on the advice of her ministers.

The last time a law got that far despite the monarch's powerful lobbying powers.

Phil the Greek is in the Hospital. NOOOOOOoooooooooo.

AustonT wrote:Phil the Greek is in the Hospital. NOOOOOOoooooooooo.

Hopefully he will pull through ok - apparently a bladder infection according to the radio. Which kind of takes the wee

91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.

AustonT wrote:91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.

Did you hear his latest one?

There was an old disabled lady in a foil blanket, oh here is a quote from a paper.

Philip asked elderly Barbara Dubery as she kept warm in a foil blanket: “Are they going to put you in the oven next?”

Her daughter Pam said: “It made my day.”

Prince Philip is a genius.

mattyrm wrote:

AustonT wrote:91 on Sunday I heard, he still looks good so I hope it doesn't develop into something like pneumonia. That old geezer is always a hoot...plus Charles is a tit.

Did you hear his latest one?

There was an old disabled lady in a foil blanket, oh here is a quote from a paper.

Philip asked elderly Barbara Dubery as she kept warm in a foil blanket: “Are they going to put you in the oven next?”

Her daughter Pam said: “It made my day.”

Can you imagine the outrage if she had been Jewish?
He IS a fething genious I love what he does during the Queen's speech. He looks like he wants to murder EVERY MP in the Government. (He probably does)

dæl wrote:
Royals do have power, a lot more than people realise, they pass all laws, and what they ask for in return is always done behind closed doors. Do you not think it funny that we are protecting the non native royal favourite pheasant by destroying the indigenous buzzard?
So being accountable and wanting people's approval is bad, but reacting to bad press is good?
Slavery worked for hundreds of years too. (btw they aren't comparable, but I'm just proving somethings long standing existence doesn't make it morally justifiable).

You don't perchance have a silver foil hat?

The Queen has no power whatsoever when it comes to laws. If the government wanted to add a new law they don't need her, it's all down to tradition. If she said no it migt send ripples through the establishment but at the end of the day there is bugger all that she can do. Modern business holds more money & power than the royal family does, don't forget that back in the day it was the rest of the Nobles that held the real power. As I understand it in some some circles the royal family is looked down upon.

You miss the point about being accountable. Anybody elected into the role of head of state would be jumping left right and centre at every bad press report, trying to please evrybody so they can get in next time. The royals have been able to ignore and be above any bad press, because most of the time it's been a flash in the pan and goes away. Just imagine what it would be like if they responded to half the stuff printed about Harry, it would just feed the fire. I think you will find that senior royals have been quietly brought to heel by The Queen when it really matters. Even she realised that the death of Diana was something that dealt with in a more public fashion.

As to the pheasents, more likely to be down to the money made by the upper classes going out shooting or the wannabes

dæl wrote:Who needs democracy eh? I mean royalty are selected by God and who are we mere mortals to argue. And it's not like the hereditary peers of the lords made their fortunes in unsavoury manners all those centuries ago. So yeah, they're good, and lets add a few that give money to fund political parties campaigns, we need them in the House of Lords too.

Did I say anything about not having democracy? My point was if you have elected members of the Upper House, how will it work? Who votes for them? How do you choose which parties can have representatives? In theory you could end up with a House full of BNP members. How do you stop it becoming an extension of the House of Commons? As I already mentioned, if party A gets a majority, where are the checks and balances if they then also get a majority in the Upper House?

Technically the Queen does have to okay all laws...
She's just not allowed to say no...
The royalty holds no real power though. Getting angry about it is silly...

Wolfstan wrote:
You don't perchance have a silver foil hat?

I have several, they each block out different frequencies, have to wear different ones depending on who's listening into my brain.

Wolfstan wrote:The Queen has no power whatsoever when it comes to laws. If the government wanted to add a new law they don't need her, it's all down to tradition.

So who can ratify laws in her place? Or dissolve parliament? Or release the army?

Wolfstan wrote:Did I say anything about not having democracy?

Yes. You advocated a monarchy, and a second unelected chamber, both pretty undemocratic.

The way in which the Lords will be elected will have to be different from the Commons, they don't have constituencies for a start. I don't know how it will be done, but there is little chance of it being full of BNP considering they are nowhere in the Commons.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.

I understand it completely. I just recognize that the court isn't going to do anything about it. Without enforcement the provision is meaningless.

Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.

I wouldn't. Tort lawyers generally don't do contracts.

Then what do they do? 'Cause contract disputes (which includes divorces) makes up the bulk of civil proceedings. At least in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that personal injury/damage cases clog up the court system in your neck of the woods, though.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?

Then you don't understand the political question doctrine. Then again, most Americans don't either.

Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.


EDIT: Maybe we should cease the hijacking of this thread, and let the Brits have their little party for their octagenarian taskmaster?

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

azazel the cat wrote:Then what do they do? 'Cause contract disputes (which includes divorces) makes up the bulk of civil proceedings. At least in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that personal injury/damage cases clog up the court system in your neck of the woods, though.

Torts attorneys deal with torts. That's why they're called "torts attorneys."

azazel the cat wrote:Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.

No, that's not the rule. Basically, the political question doctrine is the Court saying that it's not going to get involved in issues reserved for the political branches (executive and legislative). This is one of them.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.

azazel the cat wrote:Pretty sure I've got at least a solid grasp on it. And I'm pretty sure that much like any case that involves your constitution, it is open to judicial interpretation, irrespective of political ramifications. I doubt the courts would rule and say that "Person A is eligible/ineligible for the office of the president", but if an elected person were to be denied office due to that clause and took the issue to court, then I am quite certain that a ruling would be generated on the legality of the denial.

biccat wrote:No, that's not the rule. Basically, the political question doctrine is the Court saying that it's not going to get involved in issues reserved for the political branches (executive and legislative). This is one of them.

Isn't that what I said (perhaps poorly phrased)?


EDIT: Dammit! I said I wasn't gonna post in this thread anymore. Now I'm definitely done here.

EDIT: Wow, that was a weak-ass "celebration" .

Did Pink Floyd play Shine On You Crazy Diamond?

Because if that didn't happen then there's just no fething point in having a monarchy at all.

Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?

The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/documents-reveal-british-royalty-secretly-veto-legislation-2012-4

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16099842

Having watched some of the parade, I do have a question. Are the shakos of the Queen's Guard still bearskin? I remember hearing some sort of hubbub about it, then nothing...

Congrats on ya'lls diamond Jubilee thingy. Party like prohibition just ended and all that.

treadhead1944 wrote:Having watched some of the parade, I do have a question. Are the shakos of the Queen's Guard still bearskin? I remember hearing some sort of hubbub about it, then nothing...

I believe they still use real bear fur.

reds8n wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?

The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/documents-reveal-british-royalty-secretly-veto-legislation-2012-4

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16099842

Whether he has done or would is another thing though.
It's probable that if he did veto it Parliament would simply pass a law saying he can't and then pass the law he veto-ed in the first place.

purplefood wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:Can anybody point out a time in recent history where the Royal Family/Queen refused to sign in laws that had been passed in parliament?

The power they wield is a courtesy. If the Royals started to throw their powers around they'd be out on their arse before you could even say 'deposed'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/documents-reveal-british-royalty-secretly-veto-legislation-2012-4

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16099842

Whether he has done or would is another thing though.
It's probable that if he did veto it Parliament would simply pass a law saying he can't and then pass the law he veto-ed in the first place.

The Queen wouldn't ratify a law removing her last vestige of power, and therefore give Parliament the power to make and pass laws without her.

The point is we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, it's the same as those dinners with Cameron.

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, so that is what you meant when you were saying something entirely different. I would expect better from you.

I said that you don't have to be born in the USA to be president. That's true, even if it's just a practical reality in opposition to the law.

But it is the law. Your constitution says so. You have to be a natural-born American citizen. it's a practical reality as well as black-letter law.

The black letter law says you have to be a natural born Citizen, that doesn't mean you have to be born IN the US. I feel like you grasp the concept but continue to argue because it's biccat.