Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barred from Cubs for not swearing allegiance to the Queen

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Meryln, just because you give money to an organisation doesn't give you the right to dictate how it is run, in some cases you can stipulate how that money is spent but that is it. If you want an organisation to change something you disagree with, you make it a condition of funding, just don't think it gives you the right to dictate how they are run.



    Comment


    • #32
      True, but it is the Queen's perogative to appoint ministers to introduce laws to her liking.

      But that is a fantasy world where the Queen would actually care about the government of her kingdom.

      Comment


      • #33
        Unbelievable, you're actually suggesting that the UK abandons democracy, with the Queen using emergency powers just to get Act repealed. And all because some stroppy bint wants to make a political point. That kind of behavior might be OK in Putin's Russia, but not in the UK.

        Comment


        • #34
          Well I wouldn't consider the UK a democarcy. At the very least a democratic constitutional MONARCHY. The Queen has her reserve powers for a reason and should be an important protector of the people.

          Think of Edward VII in 1910 when Asquith tried to ram through the "People's Budget" and flood the House of Lords with new peerages. Edward refused Asquith's request was dangerous to the constitution.

          Or flip to the early 1990s when in a similar system Baudouin of Belgium refused assent to a law limiting restrictions on abortions as against the morals of the country.

          The Queen is a great statesman and should use her rightful powers to influence her government accordingly, though in a limited fashion.

          Comment


          • #35
            The King didn't reject Asquiths request for more Liberal Peers, he merely insisted that he tested the electorates support for such a measure with an election, because the Liberal government didn't have a mandate for such a constitutionaly important act from either Parliament or the people. The Liberal's won the election and got their extra Lords, this resulted in the passing of the 1911 Parliament Act which removed the power of the Upper House to block a finance bill lawfully passed by the Commons.

            So once again, the Monarch cannot block or repeal legislation that has been lawfully passed by Parliament.

            BTW To amend or repeal the Act of Settlement would have a major impact on the British Consitution, as the Act is one of the central pillars of it.

            Comment


            • #36
              I've also just noticed your comment about the UK not being a democracy. Cheeky bugger, I've noticed this on several American sites, you think the only true kind of democracy is the American style.

              Comment


              • #37
                Well Edward did hold up Asquith's budget, if one can slow something, can't one also stop it? I don't know what major constitutional effect amending the Act of Settlement would have. It has been amended before. It would simply change the royal succession laws. I do not insist the the US is the only democracy. I would insist on proper labeling of types of governments. I would call the US a federal republic, and the UK is definatly some form of constitutional monarchy.

                So what is your view of the Queen's power? Is she just a mere puppet acted on every whim of her ministers? If so, why even keep her around?

                Comment


                • #38
                  If you want the proper label the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy, with a Constitutional Monarch as our head of state.

                  The King didn't block the Liberal budget, that was thrown out by the Lords. Asquith wanted to change the make up of Parliament by increasing the number of Liberal peers. The Liberal government didn't have a mandate for such a drastic change to Parliament, so the King wasn't prepared to create the peers without Asquith going to the country.

                  The Queens powers are there to stop the government from abusing theirs, e.g. In the UK the maximum time between elections is 5yrs, if the government tried to ignore this limit the Queen would disolve Parliament and force an election. Alternatively, if the government tried to call an election 18mths after the last one, just because the poll numbers were excellent, the Queen can refuse their request to disolve Parliament.

                  The Queen on the other hand can't adopt absolute power because she can't raise money without Parliament. Also, she must give assent to any bill that is presented to her with the backing of both Houses of Parliament, even if it is her own death warrant.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "Also, she must give assent to any bill that is presented to her with the backing of both Houses of Parliament, even if it is her own death warrant."

                    Which, in the case of a death warrant, she will not have to consider, as the UK is a member of the EU and doesn't have capital punishment. Of course, GB also abolished slavery before the US.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      "The Queens powers are there to stop the government from abusing theirs, e.g. In the UK the maximum time between elections is 5yrs, if the government tried to ignore this limit the Queen would disolve Parliament and force an election. Alternatively, if the government tried to call an election 18mths after the last one, just because the poll numbers were excellent, the Queen can refuse their request to disolve Parliament.

                      The Queen on the other hand can't adopt absolute power because she can't raise money without Parliament. Also, she must give assent to any bill that is presented to her with the backing of both Houses of Parliament, even if it is her own death warrant."

                      Its nice that you can decide when the Queen can act and when she can't.

                      Nobody ever said she has absolute power. Obviously she doesn't have to sign her death warrant. Tell me, when did the monarch lose the right to without assent?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "Its nice that you can decide when the Queen can act and when she can't.

                        Nobody ever said she has absolute power. Obviously she doesn't have to sign her death warrant. Tell me, when did the monarch lose the right to without assent?"

                        Well you seem to be under the impression she can pick and choose which Acts of Parliament should be on the statute books.

                        Cab you elaborate on your question "when did the monarch lose the right to without assent?"

                        Furthermore, what parts of the Act of Settlement do you think should be repealed?(This message has been edited by Chug)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I never said the Queen can suspend acts of Parliament. That hasn't been done since the Stuarts. But she can appoint ministers and tell them of her intention that they should introduce legislation to change acts of bigotry such as the Act of Settlement.

                          It was you who said the Queen should use her powers to protect the democracy from the government. Is not repealing a measure against her Catholic subjects such a use of that?

                          When I asked, when did the monarch lose the right to withold assent, I was wondering when it happened. We know it happened in 1707, what act stopped that right? I don't recall a Magna Carta, Petition of Right, Act of Settlemet, Bill of Rights, or anything which has since stopped that.

                          I would ideally get rid of the entire Act of Settlement. I'm a Jacobite at heart, but I realize that is totally unpractical. I think would should happen though is the anti-Catholic provisions should be repealed.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The Queen would only use her right to appoint government Minister in the event of a hung parliament with no possibility of a coalition being agreed.

                            The Monarch is the head of the Church of England, and takes an oath to protect and defend the Protestant, Reformed Church. You can't be a Catholic and do that.

                            Funnily enough their is other roles in the UK that don't accept Catholics. Archbishop of Canterbury and Chief Rabbi are two that spring to mind. Conversley, the chances of me being appointed a Cardinal are none too healthy.

                            A question for you. If the Chug family upped stick and emigrated to the USA, taking full US citizenship. What is the chance of either of my children becoming President?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Which leads me to another question.

                              What is your opinion of the BSA's ban on homosexuals being in the movement?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "A question for you. If the Chug family upped stick and emigrated to the USA, taking full US citizenship. What is the chance of either of my children becoming President?"

                                You and your children? None. Your children's children? Possible, if they are born in the U.S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X