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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    This government is the government of her very lowness herself; that German crocodile, the Queen. The Queen and her royal family own the government, whichever or whatever government happens to be in power at the time. Thus we are in a monarchy, so-to-speak.

    Democracy - first dreamt up by Socrates or some other fool - true democracy is incompatible with monarchy, I would have thought?

    So the Queen still rules us by proxy (I think that's the right word); she is still top-dog; the top illuminatus, so-to-speak. As well as being the Head of State, she is the Head of the European traditions (the Holy Papal Orders) which now govern the Jesuit Orders, the European Union, etc. This is all factual stuff. This is very real.

    We are in a monarchy. We are more monarchy then democracy. And the Queen is the DJ to put it metaphorically. We are the disco, us and the politicians who social engineer us.
    That's about the worst piece of prose I've ever read, pointless argument aside.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst it might be tricky legally to remove the queen, the law is not some kind of incontrovertible, unbreakable beast. If the queen didn't give her consent to a law, then there is I suppose the possibility that it might go back to the Commons to be debated further, like when the Lords don't pass something, but I imagine - particularly if she didn't consent to her removal - that there'd be a minor, probably bloodless revolution (by which I mean parliament would just declare a new Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and she'd be ignored. Claiming that we don't live in a democracy because we have a monarchy is pretty much invalid (though the argument that we don't live in a democracy because we only effectively have 2/3 choices and we don't have a direct democracy mechanism is perhaps more of one).

    Alternatively: Troll?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see it being particularly hard for the Commons to remove the Queen. If they managed it in the 1640s I think they'd manage it today.
    Offline

    0
    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. 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.

    Yes I meant the government could use it if the queen started acting like a dictator and the people were not happy with her not the other way around. If the people elect a parliament and the parliament puts through a law that the most if not all the people are in favour of. Then the queen or whoever is monarch at the time decides they don't want this law passed and decide to start abusing their powers. Then like you said in adherence to the people they could use this right to remove the queen from the throne. If it was the other way around and it was the government that were the dictating ones then yes, the queen could use her powers to stop these acts of tyranny. However in some cases this may not even work. Because if the government has managed to get a lot of generals and high ranking officers on their side, then we could have a totally different situation. We could possibly have a military coup. Ok maybe now I'm getting a bit unrealistic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.



    Are you actually a fantasist? If so, at least try to keep your fantasies consistent.
    No there is no such documents called enemy of the state, and i never said there was. The whole idea that the queen started dictating and abusing her powers is a fantacy. We are speaking hypothetically. If the queen started abusing her power and dictating and it wasn't in accordance of what the people wanted. Then like people have said it would be hard to legally stop her. However they could legally use there rights that they use against enemies of the state (again there is no law called enemy of the state, but there are many laws and rights that the government use to tackle these threats) to dethrone the queen. If she starts dictating and abusing her powers, then she is against the people and is a threat to national interests. When someone becomes a threat to national interests then the government can deal with these threats by any means necessary, this includes killing them, if they feel this is the only way to stop them. Like i said these rights get used all the time, that's why I provided the example of the taliban and the suspected terrorist (albeit wrongly accused). Obviously these examples of threats to the people are not on the same scale as a dictating monarch. However it essentially falls under the same catagory. And like i said the government when faced with national threats does not need a vote in parliament or the permission of the queen to deal with the situation. Therefore if the queen is about to go power mad and try to summon the military to do her bidding then the government can say she is a national threat and have her removed from the throne. There is no fantacy in what i am saying nor am i wrong. When you become a threat to the people you become an enemy of the government. In order to stop these potentially devistating threats, the government by right can deal with it in anyway necessary. Without a need for a long discussion or approval of the queen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    No there is no such documents called enemy of the state, and i never said there was.
    Yes, you did:

    " It has many written laws and documents not just one. One of these documents is the is about enemies of the state."

    The whole idea that the queen started dictating and abusing her powers is a fantacy. We are speaking hypothetically. If the queen started abusing her power and dictating and it wasn't in accordance of what the people wanted.
    Parliament is balanced insofar as the Crown is subject to the rule of law and the consent of both Houses of Parliament is needed for the Crown to raise revenue. This is why we have a balanced and effective constitution, not some fantasy about being able to shoot the Queen if she gets uppity.

    If she starts dictating and abusing her powers, then she is against the people and is a threat to national interests. When someone becomes a threat to national interests then the government can deal with these threats by any means necessary, this includes killing them
    No, they cannot. That is called murder, and in the particular position of the Sovereign is treason.

    And like i said the government when faced with national threats does not need a vote in parliament or the permission of the queen to deal with the situation.
    I'm not sure what part of this you've missed out: the Queen is part of the government, she is the head of it and all executive power flows directly from her. The Queen has the legal entitlement to remove any Ministers of the Crown from their position on the slightest whim.

    There is no fantacy in what i am saying nor am i wrong.
    I'm afraid it is entirely fantasy and entirely incorrect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, you did:

    " It has many written laws and documents not just one. One of these documents is the is about enemies of the state."



    Parliament is balanced insofar as the Crown is subject to the rule of law and the consent of both Houses of Parliament is needed for the Crown to raise revenue. This is why we have a balanced and effective constitution, not some fantasy about being able to shoot the Queen if she gets uppity.



    No, they cannot. That is called murder, and in the particular position of the Sovereign is treason.


    I'm not sure what part of this you've missed out: the Queen is part of the government, she is the head of it and all executive power flows directly from her. The Queen has the legal entitlement to remove any Ministers of the Crown from their position on the slightest whim.



    I'm afraid it is entirely fantasy and entirely incorrect.
    *Sigh* First of all I never said there was a law called enemy of the state. I said there are laws about enemies of the state. Understand?

    I never said they would kill her in this situation. I said if someone is a threat to national interests, the government has the right to deal with them in anyway necessary this include killing them.

    The queens authority is only derived in accordance to the public. And any act the queen makes that is not in accordance to the public is commiting treason against the public (similarly any act an enemy of the state makes is treason against the public). Therefore the queens authority can be overruled becuase she has commited an act against public interests and she can be dethroned! Remeber charles the 1st? and his head was chopped off!

    So I reiterate my point:
    Queens power is in accordance of the wishes of the people.
    The queen exercises the powers wrongfully.
    She has now commited treason against the public.
    She is now an enemy of the state.
    The government are allowed to deal with threats to national interests in the best way they see fit.
    Her powers can now be overruled by government.
    She is dethroned.

    Therefore there is no fantasy here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    This government is the government of her very lowness herself; that German crocodile, the Queen. The Queen and her royal family own the government, whichever or whatever government happens to be in power at the time. Thus we are in a monarchy, so-to-speak.

    Democracy - first dreamt up by Socrates or some other fool - true democracy is incompatible with monarchy, I would have thought?

    So the Queen still rules us by proxy (I think that's the right word); she is still top-dog; the top illuminatus, so-to-speak. As well as being the Head of State, she is the Head of the European traditions (the Holy Papal Orders) which now govern the Jesuit Orders, the European Union, etc. This is all factual stuff. This is very real.

    We are in a monarchy. We are more monarchy then democracy. And the Queen is the DJ to put it metaphorically. We are the disco, us and the politicians who social engineer us.
    It must be exhausting being so angry about this stuff all the time, seriously dude go out, have a laugh and chill a bit! Its nearly Christmas!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    *Sigh* First of all I never said there was a law called enemy of the state. I said there are laws about enemies of the state. Understand?
    I understand perfectly - you are now backtracking on something you said and using this fluidity of argument to deflect the problem that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I never said they would kill her in this situation. I said if someone is a threat to national interests, the government has the right to deal with them in anyway necessary this include killing them.
    We are not arguing over "would", we are arguing over "could", and you certainly said that the government - or, rather, this strange concept of "government" which you hold that is not accountable to the Crown - could "assassinate" the Queen. This is rot.

    The queens authority is only derived in accordance to the public. And any act the queen makes that is not in accordance to the public is commiting treason against the public
    All of this is supreme nonsense. The Queen's authority is derived from law. There is also no concept of committing "treason against the public" - Treason is a very narrowly defined set of offences, tightly controlled in law.

    Therefore the queens authority can be overruled becuase she has commited an act against public interests
    "The public interests" is a meaningless phrase. One person's conception of their interests is entirely different from another's. I have, I'm sorry to say, entered into an argument based on a false proposition: that any of this matters. It does not. The Queen cannot be overruled in this way.

    and she can be dethroned! Remeber charles the 1st? and his head was chopped off!
    Charles I was unlawfully murdered and his murderers were condemned for treason.

    Therefore there is no fantasy here.
    Simply restating falsehoods does not make them any less fantastic. They are still wrong, and you continue to peddle them even when faced with legal fact that you have failed to even attempt to dispute.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    First of all, the uk does not have any de facto constitution.
    Actually, the UK does have a de facto constitution. It doesn't have a de jure or codified constitution in the style of the US. De facto our constitution is made up of various precedents, conventions and laws, with the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Westminister Statute, the Representation of the People Act, the Human Rights Act, and the European Communities Act being probably the most important examples.

    By convention, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, however the Prime Minister must be able to sustain confidence and supply from the commons. In practice this usually means the leader of the largest party, but it doesn't matter as long as it's someone who can get the commons to vote in favour of their spending plans. Appointing somebody else would violate this constitutional convention and therefore cause a constitutional crisis.

    Similarly every Act must receive royal assent, because the Crown is the state and acts are technically not passed by parliament but by the Crown in Parliament. Convention is that royal assent cannot be refused, and so we'd have another constitutional crisis if it was.

    Couldn't say what would happen if a constitutional crisis of this kind were to actually happen, but if there was a Parliament vs. the Queen type contest I know which side I'd put money one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    This government is the government of her very lowness herself; that German crocodile, the Queen. The Queen and her royal family own the government, whichever or whatever government happens to be in power at the time. Thus we are in a monarchy, so-to-speak.

    Democracy - first dreamt up by Socrates or some other fool - true democracy is incompatible with monarchy, I would have thought?

    So the Queen still rules us by proxy (I think that's the right word); she is still top-dog; the top illuminatus, so-to-speak. As well as being the Head of State, she is the Head of the European traditions (the Holy Papal Orders) which now govern the Jesuit Orders, the European Union, etc. This is all factual stuff. This is very real.

    We are in a monarchy. We are more monarchy then democracy. And the Queen is the DJ to put it metaphorically. We are the disco, us and the politicians who social engineer us.
    Shouldn't you be trying to find some way to earn some money to get the bailiffs off your back?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I understand perfectly - you are now backtracking on something you said and using this fluidity of argument to deflect the problem that you have no idea what you're talking about.



    We are not arguing over "would", we are arguing over "could", and you certainly said that the government - or, rather, this strange concept of "government" which you hold that is not accountable to the Crown - could "assassinate" the Queen. This is rot.



    All of this is supreme nonsense. The Queen's authority is derived from law. There is also no concept of committing "treason against the public" - Treason is a very narrowly defined set of offences, tightly controlled in law.



    "The public interests" is a meaningless phrase. One person's conception of their interests is entirely different from another's. I have, I'm sorry to say, entered into an argument based on a false proposition: that any of this matters. It does not. The Queen cannot be overruled in this way.



    Charles I was unlawfully murdered and his murderers were condemned for treason.



    Simply restating falsehoods does not make them any less fantastic. They are still wrong, and you continue to peddle them even when faced with legal fact that you have failed to even attempt to dispute.
    No you literally do not understand at all. You clearly cannot comprehend the difference between, 'There is a law called enemy of the state' and 'there are laws about enemies of the state'. Is this a genuine problem that you still do not have a full grasp on simple grammer. Or are you that arrogant that you just read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear?

    Yes the government could assasinate the queen in certain circumstances. Like you said the government is accountable to the crown which is an office. The queen is only the monarch i.e the head of the crown she is however not the crown itself. If the queen started abusing laws and became an outright dictator, she would be breaking the laws that have been goverened by the crown. So yes if she was about to go on a mad power trip to enslave the people of the uk or something crazy like that, then she would be breaking laws. And if she refused to give up her postion on the advice of the parliament, and government felt the only way to stop her was to kill her, then they'd be well within their rights to as this was in the publics interest. However my argument was about dethroning the queen not killing her! (please read my posts again) I was saying the government can use any course of action to stop enemies of the state. This includes killing them. I never suggested that is what government would do. Again you are reading things and jumping to conclusions.

    What I am saying is correct. If the queen starts overruling parliament. And then refuses to give up her monarch on the advice of parliament. Due to the fact that the queen cannot nessecarily be tried in court. Then the government can decide she is breaking the law by becoming a threat to national interest (as stated earlier with examples) and is therefore commiting a crime against the crown. This is an offence the doesn't have to go through court to be dealt with. And by default the government will take the appropriate action to uphold the law. i.e relieve the queen of her duties.

    If i'm not mistaken, charles was tried, under a crown court and sentanced to death. The people that were condemed were condemed for taking it too far by executing an ex monarch not because it was illegal.

    This idea that you are suggesting, that the queen has no legal obligations and is 100% above the law and will not be held accountable for her actions is absolutely ludicrous! As I have said, the queen is the monarch, the person in charge of the crown. The crown is an office. No one person can be the crown, therefore if the queen breaks certain laws she can be held acountable through some loopholes. By overruling parliament she is going against the people. The government could then decide this is a threat to national interests and declare the she is an enemy of the state. They can then take appropriate action and hence dethrone the queen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Actually, the UK does have a de facto constitution. It doesn't have a de jure or codified constitution in the style of the US. De facto our constitution is made up of various precedents, conventions and laws, with the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Westminister Statute, the Representation of the People Act, the Human Rights Act, and the European Communities Act being probably the most important examples.

    By convention, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, however the Prime Minister must be able to sustain confidence and supply from the commons. In practice this usually means the leader of the largest party, but it doesn't matter as long as it's someone who can get the commons to vote in favour of their spending plans. Appointing somebody else would violate this constitutional convention and therefore cause a constitutional crisis.

    Similarly every Act must receive royal assent, because the Crown is the state and acts are technically not passed by parliament but by the Crown in Parliament. Convention is that royal assent cannot be refused, and so we'd have another constitutional crisis if it was.

    Couldn't say what would happen if a constitutional crisis of this kind were to actually happen, but if there was a Parliament vs. the Queen type contest I know which side I'd put money one.
    That's what I was suggestion that the uk doesn't have a de facto or one constitution like the US, however it has many constitutions like the magna carta and so on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    That's what I was suggestion that the uk doesn't have a de facto or one constitution like the US, however it has many constitutions like the magna carta and so on.
    De facto means "in fact", or in English usually it's translated as "in practice", and a constitution in many parts is still a constitution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)

    We are in a monarchy. .
    Excellent. Right, in that case, shut up before you get tried for treason, place warrents out for Tony Blair and gordon brown for damaging this country, disband parliament and lets get the ball rolling properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    De facto means "in fact", or in English usually it's translated as "in practice", and a constitution in many parts is still a constitution.
    Appologise yes you are right it does have a de facto constitution is the sense that it is made of many constitutions. I was using 'de facto' in the sense the there was only one constitution 'in practice'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    No you literally do not understand at all. You clearly cannot comprehend the difference between, 'There is a law called enemy of the state' and 'there are laws about enemies of the state'. Is this a genuine problem that you still do not have a full grasp on simple grammer. Or are you that arrogant that you just read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear?
    You're wrong and that you have changed your argument is immaterial to me. If some document exists, pray tell, what is it called?

    What I am saying is correct. If the queen starts overruling parliament. And then refuses to give up her monarch on the advice of parliament. Then the government can decide she is breaking the law by becoming a threat to national interest (as stated earlier with examples) and is therefore commiting a crime against the crown. By default the government will have to take the appropriate action to uphold the law. i.e relieve the queen of her duties.
    The government is the Queen and her servants, they cannot remove her. Again, this is entirely made up nonsense - and has been demonstrated to be nonsense.

    If i'm not mistaken, charles was tried, under a crown court and sentanced to death. The people that were condemed were condemed for taking it too far by executing an ex monarch not because it was illegal.
    No, he was "tried" by a group of parliamentarians who sat under no lawful authority whatsoever. So yes, you are mistaken.

    This idea that you are suggesting, that the queen has no legal obligations and is 100% above the law and will not be held accountable for her actions is absolutely ludicrous!
    That is not what I'm suggesting. The Queen is bound by the law, that is the nature of constitutional monarchy. You are simply inventing laws that don't exist.

    By overruling parliament she is going against the people.
    She is part of Parliament.

    The government could then decide this is a threat to national interests
    She is the head of the government.

    and declare the she is an enemy of the state. They can then take appropriate action and hence dethrone the queen.
    Nope, you've made that up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    This government is the government of her very lowness herself; that German crocodile, the Queen. The Queen and her royal family own the government, whichever or whatever government happens to be in power at the time. Thus we are in a monarchy, so-to-speak.

    Democracy - first dreamt up by Socrates or some other fool - true democracy is incompatible with monarchy, I would have thought?

    So the Queen still rules us by proxy (I think that's the right word); she is still top-dog; the top illuminatus, so-to-speak. As well as being the Head of State, she is the Head of the European traditions (the Holy Papal Orders) which now govern the Jesuit Orders, the European Union, etc. This is all factual stuff. This is very real.

    We are in a monarchy. We are more monarchy then democracy. And the Queen is the DJ to put it metaphorically. We are the disco, us and the politicians who social engineer us.
    Sorry, not enough metaphors for me to understand what you're getting at.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You're wrong and that you have changed your argument is immaterial to me. If some document exists, pray tell, what is it called?



    The government is the Queen and her servants, they cannot remove her. Again, this is entirely made up nonsense - and has been demonstrated to be nonsense.



    No, he was "tried" by a group of parliamentarians who sat under no lawful authority whatsoever. So yes, you are mistaken.



    That is not what I'm suggesting. The Queen is bound by the law, that is the nature of constitutional monarchy. You are simply inventing laws that don't exist.



    She is part of Parliament.



    She is the head of the government.



    Nope, you've made that up.

    Ok so you have answered my first question that you just read what you want to read and understand what ever you like.

    The government is the crown, the queen holds office of the crown.

    Ok i'm not too sure about the charles story, however i will look this up.

    Exactly the queen is bound by law! By abusing her powers and overuling government, techically she is doing nothing worng. However there is one loophole the goverment can use to dispute that. This is through declaring she is a threat to national interests (as i've said time and time again). When a person falls under this catagory the government has a right to deal with this threat without consent of parliament/monarch..... blah blah blah, i've already said this.

    I am inventing this, it something that is used quite regularly (examples provided in previous posts)

    Never said she wasn't part of parliament. I said she was going against the wishes of parliament. Just because you are part of a team, does not mean you cannot go agaisnt it.

    She is the head of government, however the part of government that decides on this issue (Liable Insurgent Entrapment act 1949) i am talking about is the cabinet. And like i said it doesn't need her approval. (can also be decided by civil servants and military officer, however this is a totally different situation). This is all covered Under Regina's Ambassador and Magistrates Utilities and Generals.

    Is this you by any chance?:p:


    Possibly this is more appropriate:
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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