I am a Loyalist. Are you?

Whoah there. Do you mean you oppose anybody apart from MPs having input on law and policy? What about petitions, committee evidence, charity lobbying?

Note my use of the word 'potential'.



Notice my use of the word 'potential'. But yes.



I'm not quite sure how this relates to my post.

Yeah.

No you would have civil war if you attempted to remove the Monarchy. The Loyalists would not accept it.

The right is still their, just the Monarch is constrained. The right never the less is never ending.

Good for them. However they still take into account a 900 year old document called Magna Carta, which wasn't only even fully enforced by the English bill of Rights. The age of something makes no difference. Parliament and Courts manipulated by Parliament not taking the English Bill of Rights into account makes no different to the fact that the English Bill of Rights is the bed rock of all the freedom we have in this country today.

Not really.


This country is a very good country to live compared with many other places, not because it's Britain, but because for the most part it's safe, well developed and we do make an effort to look after the people here. I am a republican, not because I am associated with the IRA or Catholicism, but because the very principle of being born into a certain position is wrong and is extremely backward and regressive, as is the idea of having a state religion The Church of England, which was in fact a religion which was quite literally made up for political reasons.

You are quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest poster on this forum. It's so obvious there is a difference between putting your views forward to the people who are supposed to represent you and having political power, given to you, because you were the first born child of a certain family.

If a freely elected Parliament voted to oust the monarchy based on a violation of the laws and spirit of the constitution of the land by the monarch, then we'd have a republic peacefully within a week. Those few who threatened civil war over it would be jailed. No chance.

Actually, the courts fully accept that the age and usage of a principle directly impacts its enforceability. Magna Carta remains relevant because the people consider it relevant, and Parliament does. The Bill of Rights is relevant to Parliament, but doesn't concern the people much any more. There are parts of it which are of no interest to either, and they have been ignored, repealed, or legislated over, including much of the aspects favouring Protestants to which you refer.

The Monarch is sovereign of Parliament and the Fount of Justice and Law. The Monarch can not be removed other than by lack of succession on the death of a Monarch, then Parliament can decided who the next Monarch will be. Other than that, the Monarch is free from Parliament and above the law.

Yeah, yeah the Liberal Party said the same thing about Ulster Loyalists in 1910, they end up with their own independent Parliament in Ulster.

Hah. And you know how long that argument would stand if the people simply wanted the monarch gone?



Which was then recognised by Act of Parliament. If there had been political will after the Great War, those Loyalists would have been crushed.

Depends on which people want the Monarch gone.

Well of course it was, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were. No they wouldn't, what would have happened is the Irish nationalist would have been crushed and the Loyalist would have got what they wanted.

**** the monarchy, **** every religion, **** any unelected person having political influence and **** most actual politicians for that matter.

I am Loyalist, which means I am Loyal to the Monarchy, Glorious Revolution and English Bill of Rights. This means Britain is and must remain a Protestant state and the the Monarch should have direct political influence over things in the Monarch's interest. That means the Monarch is the Fount of Justice and Law, Defender of the Protestant faith, Sovereign Head of State and Head of the British Army. As such the Monarch should be able block laws and send them back to Parliament and put her own bills before Parliament. It also means from the English Bill of Rights that every Protestant British subject has the freedom to keep arms for protection of their own property.

I am not a Unionist, I support the freedom for Protestants to setup their own independent Parliament under the British state if they don't like the UK Parliament. Like Ulster did. With that in mind I support the re-establishment of the Church of Ireland and Church of Wales to extend their protection to the whole of the UK.

So are you a Loyalist?

No they wouldn't, what would have happened is the Irish nationalist would have been crushed and the Loyalist would have got what they wanted.

The majority.



It would have been a bloody, horrendous and long-running civil war in which neither would have got what they wanted. It worries me that you treat human life so callously.

I only agree with the bit about arms and the Bill of Rights. Then again, theoretically I do not think it is for the state to give and take rights. I believe in natural rights.

And for those who point to the US, I would remind you that Switzerland has liberal gun laws with no problems whatsoever.