Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Her Majesty's Government. Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone in the government has been injected with the essence of the queen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    :fyi: Crocodiles are not indigenous to Germany.

    Also, you're a racist, conspiracy theorist, nut-job.
    This... that first post was impressively retarded, even by your standards, Martyn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is this what taxpayers' money is paying you for? To concoct wild conspiracy theories?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Is this what taxpayers' money is paying you for? To concoct wild conspiracy theories?
    I love how you can manage to raise the issue of taxpayers' money being wasted in any thread, no matter how unrelated.:congrats:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    This is true. The queen has to stay neutral on everything, no matter what she thinks. If she doesn't agree with the government which has been elected by the people then she becomes an enemy of the state and an enemy of the people. And the governement can relieve her of her position with immediate effect.
    The government cannot, constitutionally, remove the Queen with 'immediate effect'. Parliament would be the ones to do this, and even they would have difficulty - considering all bills require Royal Assent before they become law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    I love how you can manage to raise the issue of taxpayers' money being wasted in any thread, no matter how unrelated.:congrats:
    Please provide examples to support your theory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Please provide examples to support your theory.
    Your post in this thread? Unless you happen to know this loony in person, how can you presume to know he is at university or employed in the public sector?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    The government cannot, constitutionally, remove the Queen with 'immediate effect'. Parliament would be the ones to do this, and even they would have difficulty - considering all bills require Royal Assent before they become law.
    Surely Parliament could unilaterally declare itself to have law making power and see if the queen tries to roll up her tanks or to accept it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Your post in this thread? Unless you happen to know this loony in person, how can you presume to know he is at university or employed in the public sector?
    In his last thread, he mentions that he lives off JSA.

    In other news, I'm a lizard and decide which princesses have 'car accidents' in my spare time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    In his last thread, me mentions that he lives off JSA.

    In other news, I'm a lizard and decide which princesses have 'car accidents' in my spare time.
    Ahh. Fair play to you then Thatcher.

    I, meanwhile, am devastated that I somehow managed to miss one of Martyn*'s enlightening and informative topics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    The government cannot, constitutionally, remove the Queen with 'immediate effect'. Parliament would be the ones to do this, and even they would have difficulty - considering all bills require Royal Assent before they become law.
    First of all, the uk does not have any de facto constitution. It has many written laws and documents not just one. One of these documents is the is about enemies of the state. An enemy of the state can be many things, one of which is ANYONE (i.e the queen) that seeks to overpower or overrule the elected members of parliament and government of the united kingdom. As a result the government is able to deal with this in anyway they see fit. It doesn't need a vote in parliament, and i am certain it does not need the queens approval. This includes assasination, providing they feel this is the only way to stop the opposer(s). If the queen was to oppose any decision that the elected memebers of parliament passed, then she could fall into this catagory because she is trying to stop a decision of the elected representatives of the people. This means she officially becomes an enemy of the state. Now obviously I doubt she would be killed. However if the government felt the only way to stop this forced opposition of parliament was to relieve the queen of her duties then this would come into immediate effect, without a need for a vote in parliament and without her permission.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    First of all, the uk does not have any de facto constitution. It has many written laws and documents not just one. One of these documents is the is about enemies of the state. An enemy of the state can be many things, one of which is ANYONE (i.e the queen) that seeks to overpower or overrule the elected members of parliament and government of the united kingdom. As a result the government is able to deal with this in anyway they see fit. It doesn't need a vote in parliament, and i am certain it does not need the queens approval. This includes assasination, providing they feel this is the only way to stop the opposer(s). If the queen was to oppose any decision that the elected memebers of parliament passed, then she could fall into this catagory because she is trying to stop a decision of the elected representatives of the people. This means she officially becomes an enemy of the state. Now obviously I doubt she would be killed. However if the government felt the only way to stop this forced opposition of parliament was to relieve the queen of her duties then this would come into immediate effect, without a need for a vote in parliament and without her permission.
    Do you have a source for these wild assertions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Do you have a source for these wild assertions?
    Wild assertions lol. This is a well known law, that is used liberally. In afghanist this rule of enemy of the state is used all the time. Generally a soldier is not allowed to fire upon taliban unless the taliban are holding a weapons, due to the rules of engagement. However generals and senior officers are given permission by the government to allow the rules of engagement to be overruled. For example, a few weeks ago the sas/sbs made a surprise attack on a taliban base killing about 15-20 taliban. The reason they were able to do this is because the government decided the men in this base and what they were doing was a threat to britsh lives. Therefore they became an enemy of the state and were essentially assasinated. This decision did not have to go through parliament, neither did it have to have the permission of the PM. Infact the decision was probably made by a couple of senior officers. Now I know it seems like this has nothing to do with what we are talking about. However the point I am trying to make is, it is really easy to fall under the catagory of enemy of the state. So if a bunch of poorly equipped bandits 3000 miles away can be considered a threat to british interests and an enemy of the state. And the decision can be made by a someone who is not a memeber of the government, think how easy it would be for someone that is trying to stop a decision that has been passed in parliament from happening to become a threat to national interests and an enemy of the state. Look at what happened to jean charles de menezes. He was killed because they WRONGLY thought he was a terrorist i.e an enemy of the state. When they found out he was innocent, no one was charged because they were protected by the fact they thought he was a terrorist and an enemy of the state and the police officer that shot him was acting in accordance with the law (apparently). Again my point is even an innocent man can easily be made a threat to british interests. And if the queen decides to overrule parliament, which are the elected representatives of the people, then it is very easy for the government to decide that she is a threat to the people and have the power to remove this threat by any means neccesary, without a vote in parliament.


    EDIT: There is no actual law called enemy of the state, im just using this term to decribe the powers and rights that government have with regards to threat to national interests. Also the queen can fall under the official terrorism act aswell, in certain circumstances.

    Here's a link on the sas mission:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...s-blitzed.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    Wild assertions lol. This is a well known law, that is used liberally. In afghanist this rule of enemy of the state is used all the time. Generally a soldier is not allowed to fire upon taliban unless the taliban are holding a weapons, due to the rules of engagement. However generals and senior officers are given permission by the government to allow the rules of engagement to be overruled. For example, a few weeks ago the sas/sbs made a surprise attack on a taliban base killing about 15-20 taliban. The reason they were able to do this is because the government decided the men in this base and what they were doing was a threat to britsh lives. Therefore they became an enemy of the state and were essentially assasinated. This decision did not have to go through parliament, neither did it have to have the permission of the PM. Infact the decision was probably made by a couple of senior officers. Now I know it seems like this has nothing to do with what we are talking about. However the point I am trying to make is, it is really easy to fall under the catagory of enemy of the state. So if a bunch of poorly equipped bandits 3000 miles away can be considered a threat to british interests and an enemy of the state. And the decision can be made by a someone who is not a memeber of the government, think how easy it would be for someone that is trying to stop a decision that has been passed in parliament from happening to become a threat to national interests and an enemy of the state. Look at what happened to jean charles de menezes. He was killed because they WRONGLY thought he was a terrorist i.e an enemy of the state. When they found out he was innocent, no one was charged because they were protected by the fact they thought he was a terrorist and an enemy of the state and the police officer that shot him was acting in accordance with the law (apparently). Again my point is even an innocent man can easily be made a threat to british interests. And if the queen decides to overrule parliament, which are the elected representatives of the people, then it is very easy for the government to decide that she is a threat to the people and have the power to remove this threat by any means neccesary, without a vote in parliament.


    EDIT: There is no actual law called enemy of the state, im just using this term to decribe the powers and rights that government have with regards to threat to national interests. Also the queen can fall under the official terrorism act aswell, in certain circumstances.

    Here's a link on the sas mission:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...s-blitzed.html
    Lol at comparing the Queen to the Taliban. Constitutionally (which is what this argument is about) and without delving into bizarre hypothetical constructs, Parliament cannot simply remove the office of the Monarch at will. It would take a long and arduous route to unravel centuries of constitutional convention and the focal point the Monarch constitutionally and legally takes within the governance of the nation. That doesn't even count the issue that would arise if the Monarch refused the Royal Assent that would remove their office. Parliament cannot just snap it's finger, constitutionally, and have it's way. Parliament (the House of Commons in this case) still had to gain the approval of the House of Lords to pass the Parliament Act 1911, albeit through threats by the incumbent King.

    If I am to entertain your hypothetical constructs, then I assume you are referring to the executive or the legislature ordering something and the consequences of that. Parliament could repeal the Statute of Westminster 1931 and attempt to legislate for the ex-colonies. That doesn't mean the people of these ex-colonies would adhere to or enforce this legislation. That counts for practically all actions taken by the governing bodies of a country - they generally rely on the adherence of the people. If a tyrannical Parliament attempted to pass legislation that grossly reduced human rights and the Queen refused Royal Assent, Parliament may decree that they have decided that the office of the Monarch is no more and legislation doesn't require Royal Assent; however, the people would not recognise an act that would remove the one body preventing tyranny.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Lol at comparing the Queen to the Taliban. Constitutionally (which is what this argument is about) and without delving into bizarre hypothetical constructs, Parliament cannot simply remove the office of the Monarch at will. It would take a long and arduous route to unravel centuries of constitutional convention and the focal point the Monarch constitutionally and legally takes within the governance of the nation. That doesn't even count the issue that would arise if the Monarch refused the Royal Assent that would remove their office. Parliament cannot just snap it's finger, constitutionally, and have it's way.
    Actually it can it would be termed 'revolution' Parliament could just ignore the monarch and wait to see if the monarch tried to bring in the army to fight their case. If they did then yes there would be a problem, if not which seems more likely now (I doubt many solders today think of the queen as divinely chosen) then we work out what to do with the customs later, none of which are necessary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Actually it can it would be termed 'revolution' Parliament could just ignore the monarch and wait to see if the monarch tried to bring in the army to fight their case. If they did then yes there would be a problem, if not which seems more likely now (I doubt many solders today think of the queen as divinely chosen) then we work out what to do with the customs later, none of which are necessary.
    Without the force of law, the occupants of the House of Commons simply become a bunch of slightly odd people in a strangely-decorated room.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    First of all, the uk does not have any de facto constitution. It has many written laws and documents not just one. One of these documents is the is about enemies of the state. An enemy of the state can be many things, one of which is ANYONE (i.e the queen) that seeks to overpower or overrule the elected members of parliament and government of the united kingdom.
    You're making this up as you go along. There is no such 'document'.

    Moreover, the Queen is the government: she has full executive authority, which she chooses either to exercise on her own (with the advice of her appointed Prime Minister) or delegate to Ministers.

    She is also one component of Parliament.

    As a result the government is able to deal with this in anyway they see fit. It doesn't need a vote in parliament, and i am certain it does not need the queens approval. This includes assasination, providing they feel this is the only way to stop the opposer(s). If the queen was to oppose any decision that the elected memebers of parliament passed, then she could fall into this catagory because she is trying to stop a decision of the elected representatives of the people.
    Are you actually a fantasist? If so, at least try to keep your fantasies consistent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Without the force of law, the occupants of the House of Commons simply become a bunch of slightly odd people in a strangely-decorated room.
    The Convention Parliament of 1689 seemed to have been more than that...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Don't feed the trolls, folks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's kind of depressing that people on here don't understand something as basic as this
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.