|
|
Post by elnoodle the reasonable on Jun 25, 2017 13:25:54 GMT
El Noodle he read that this Princess Harry geezer can't be fucked with living in golden palaces, being pulled off by horses in a carriage or getting benefits without having to prove he looking for proper job. He say no cunt want manager's job. Does this mean that German/Greek monarchy of Great England should now be scraped? If so, how would people go about scraping the queen?
On other hand, is Harry guy ungrateful shite? He has had some quality poonani because first name is Prince. The sort of burd who can afford perfect manicured minge. El Noodle great revolutionary yet even he can only pull pure roasters with fannies like Brian May's plughole.
Should this Harry fucker just keep mouth shut and appreciate quality of shagging he gets despite having face like bag of smashed crabs?
|
|
|
|
Post by roobarb on Jun 25, 2017 16:15:18 GMT
Prince Andrew can definitely get scraped.
Is Prince Edward still alive? Would anyone noticed if he wasn't?
Mucho admiration for The Queen's European flag outfit at opening of Parliament. Unless she was trolling the Remainers... hmmm.
Asked the same question 10 years ago, I would VOTE REPUBLIC but because of the politically fucked-up state the UK is in right now, I think a strong and stable Monarchy is useful.
EDIT: Ahhh... is this why the arch-shitcunts Dacre and Murdoch have Royalty plastered all over the front pages of their pamphlets?
|
|
|
|
Post by philthewindsurfer on Jun 27, 2017 8:01:14 GMT
Keep them, they are good for business.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonmart on Jun 28, 2017 18:36:41 GMT
For me the parliamentary monarchy system that we have with unwritten constitution and common law has worked very well. A Monarch with limited power that provides checks and balances against parliament is surely better than a powerful "elected" President? President Blair or Thatcher anybody? When the firm concerned pay far more in taxes than they are paid from the public purse surely it's a no brainer.
Mind you can you imagine Jug Windsor, talks to his plants as King?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie The Bastard on Jun 28, 2017 18:46:20 GMT
The Monarch has no power. Her Maj would have to sign off an abolishment bill if ever put before her.
From what I can make out, the only heir 'liked' is the ginger fella.
|
|
|
|
Post by roobarb on Jun 28, 2017 19:11:30 GMT
The Monarch has no power. Maybe it does; in subtle ways that cannot be disseminated in a Powerpoint presentation. |
|
|
|
Post by masonmart on Jun 28, 2017 19:31:07 GMT
She has the ultimate power. The armed forces swear allegiance to her.
She can dissolve Parliament.
The PM has to get her approval for any major political changes such as forming a government.
Not a perfect system but like I say, President Blair?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulg on Jun 28, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
She has the ultimate power. The armed forces swear allegiance to her. She can dissolve Parliament. The PM has to get her approval for any major political changes such as forming a government. Not a perfect system but like I say, President Blair? This isn't 1914 Martin...The commonwealth is largely irrelevant on the world stage as is our monarchy other than a draw for tourism. They have no power. Do you think Blair or Thatcher would have acted any different in a Republic? |
|
|
|
Post by masonmart on Jun 29, 2017 10:38:10 GMT
The Monarch's limited powers are:
The appointment and dismissal of ministers
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament
Royal assent to bills
The appointment and regulation of the civil service
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK
Appointment of Queen's Counsel
Issue and withdrawal of passports
Prerogative of mercy
Granting honours
Creation of corporations by Charter
The making of treaties
Declaration of war
Deployment of armed forces overseas
Recognition of foreign states
Accreditation and reception of diplomats
Theoretically, these powers are held by the Monarch. In practice, these are held by the Cabinet and they're "used" by the Monarch on their advice. Limited though her powers are they limit the powers of what would be a very powerful PM or President. Our system is a Parliamentary Monarchy which works very well in practice. When you see how opinion in the UK has polarised and people have become very intolerant and extreme politically one way or the other, an elected president would be the last thing I'd like to see.
Reform of the Lords would be far more important. I'd also like to see the number of MPs reduced, why do we need 800 Lords and 600 or so MPs?
|
|
|
|
Post by elnoodle the reasonable on Jun 29, 2017 19:34:34 GMT
Holy fuck! All you need is to be born into the right family and you get to do all this!!! The appointment and dismissal of ministers The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament Royal assent to bills The appointment and regulation of the civil service The commissioning of officers in the armed forces Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK Appointment of Queen's Counsel Issue and withdrawal of passports Prerogative of mercy Granting honours Creation of corporations by Charter The making of treaties Declaration of war Deployment of armed forces overseas Recognition of foreign states Accreditation and reception of diplomats El Noodle has made free repair of errors in post Mr Masonguy |
|
|
|
Post by masonmart on Jun 29, 2017 21:22:18 GMT
The Monarch is from a very powerful and rich line of families, she didn't gain her power and richness by being "lucky" to have been born into a given family but has the power and richness that is given to any representative of that line. She isn't rich and powerful because she is Queen rather she is Queen because she is rich and powerful. As rich landowners the monarchy and her family are heavily taxed and the supporting by the taxpayer of Royal hangers on has long gone. The monarch is the UKs chief diplomat and the current one has a life of public service behind and even now still ahead of her. For me her best move would be to go back to being just rich and powerful with no public duties and to stick a middle finger up at those who fail to see her constitutional importance and the fantastic work that she does.
Same with the Lords, it is far worse now that privileged inheritors of title have been replaced with politically appointed cronies. 800 of the dreadful creatures being paid allowances that are vastly in excess of those who work for a living.
I was once a committed Republican and I'm now a committed supporter of the Parliamentary Monarchy. The reason was the thought of people like the revolting Blair and his revolting wife becoming the new Royalty and it being changed every few years by whatever the electorate turned up at an election
|
|
|
|
Post by pantah on Jun 30, 2017 6:35:07 GMT
She also gets to tell people who have reached a really old age, that they are really old, and well done for that, by a system called a telegram.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthewindsurfer on Jan 1, 2022 10:21:30 GMT
Arise Sir Tony Blair! What a way to start 2022 reading that. He might have done some good when he was PM, but outweighed by taking the UK into an illegal phoney war looking for WMD, destabilising the area which helped create ISIS, 100000's dead, 100000's of refugees. A serious mistake by the Queen. On the other hand, this is doing the rounds again   |
|
|
|
Post by elnoodle the reasonable on Jan 1, 2022 10:47:17 GMT
Fuck me, this thread is a blast from the past. I was still a former Cuban revolutionary trying to integrate into Glasgow life. A serious mistake by the Queen. Yeah. I doubt she's involved. |
|
