For queen and country?

[beorhthelm]

You could have voted to opt out though. All you needed to do is put your X next to UKIP in the last general election. And you have a choice of UKIP for a straight "out" or the Tory party for a referendum at the next election.

interesting. just as we could vote to opt out of monarchy, if only a party stood on that platform those against sould put their X against the UK Republican Party. i think there is such a group, standing in a few seats and probably polling lower than Official Monster Raving Loony. it would seem the republicans in this country are a tiny, tiny cohort, and far more would turn out against the EU than the Queen.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

interesting. just as we could vote to opt out of monarchy, if only a party stood on that platform those against sould put their X against the UK Republican Party. i think there is such a group, standing in a few seats and probably polling lower than Official Monster Raving Loony. it would seem the republicans in this country are a tiny, tiny cohort, and far more would turn out against the EU than the Queen.

I might be wrong but I thought technically no one has the power to do this or even initiate this. The Queen invites the government to run the nation so if they were going to chop her head off and place it on spike I suspect she might invite someone else to run the show?

 

[Landgull]

Pro Queen.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

I might be wrong but I thought technically no one has the power to do this or even initiate this. The Queen invites the government to run the nation so if they were going to chop her head off and place it on spike I suspect she might invite someone else to run the show?

parliament can dissolve the monarchy if it's what the public wants....however most people seem to be indifferent to the monarchy and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that there's a wave of mass support for a republic

the queen does invite the government to run the nation, but in reality it's merely a convention and the likelihood of her refusing to allow a democratically elected government to run the nation is non-existent (although it'd be interesting to see what would happen if an extremist group were elected)

 

[Hungry Joe]

We've no stomach for revolution in this country. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whether you're a pragmatist or idealist.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

parliament can dissolve the monarchy if it's what the public wants.

But I thought all laws have to receive royal accent ie be passed by the Queen. So the government technically does not have the power to kick the Queen out if she doesn't want to go

According to the Queen's website the monarchy hasn't refused one since 1707 though.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

But I thought all laws have to receive royal accent ie be passed by the Queen. So the government technically does not have the power to kick the Queen out if she doesn't want to go

According to the Queen's website the monarchy hasn't refused one since 1707 though.

as you hinted in your second paragraph...the rubber stamping of laws is merely a formality and one that would cause a huge constitutional cluster**** if done otherwise (if the monarch refused to rubber stamp a law)...

if the public wanted to get rid of the monarchy, they'd go, i have no doubt of that...we've seen the alternative in other nations (a brutal revolution, usually)

 

[beorhthelm]

parliament can dissolve the monarchy if it's what the public wants

exactly. Parliament is sovereign. they've kicked out the monarch before, twice iirc and last time offered the job to someone of their chosing. its a constant source of wonder and annoyance that anti-royals seem to be against an concept of monarchy that hasnt been in place for over 300 years.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

as you hinted in your second paragraph...the rubber stamping of laws is merely a formality

According to what I have just read The Monachy has the power to approve or veto any law passed to it. I agree it is unlikely they will veto anything, and the last case was 1707, but the power is there none the less.

I don't want to dwell on this so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Hungry Joe]

its a constant source of wonder and annoyance that anti-royals seem to be against an concept of monarchy that hasnt been in place for over 300 years.

I think you're spending far too much time thinking about this if that's true.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

According to what I have just read The Monachy has the power to approve or veto any law passed to it. I agree it is unlikely they will veto anything, and the last case was 1707, but the power is there none the less.

I don't want to dwell on this so let's agree to disagree.

we're agreeing to agree....i know the power is there


it just won't be used unless the queen fancies rambo-ing up and goes all civil war on our asses

 

[beorhthelm]

I think you're spending far too much time thinking about this if that's true.

i mean when the subject is raised. i dont wander down the street shaking my fist, demanding if people have heard of the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement. yet.

 

[Hungry Joe]

i dont wander down the street shaking my fist, demanding if people have heard of the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement. yet.

That's a shame in a way, I love seeing people do that shit.

 

[cunning fergus]

You could have voted to opt out though. All you needed to do is put your X next to UKIP in the last general election. And you have a choice of UKIP for a straight "out" or the Tory party for a referendum at the next election.

Last time we had a European election the country overwhelmingly returned Eurosceptic parties........so the will of the electorate in that regard is clear. It is so clear that it is the very reason we have not had a referendum on our relationship with the EU despite it changing year on year into the nightmare it is today for all citizens of the EU.

For years our politicians told us, the EU will not be a United States of Europe our membership is only a mechanism to access the single market.

Yet, in Manuel Barroso's own words this year................

“Let’s not be afraid of the words: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is what we need. This is our political horizon,”

http://www.euractiv.com/priorities/barroso-seeks-public-space-launc-news-514761

You are worried about the democratic mandate of the UK's powerless head of state, care to remind me.................who elected this megalomaniac c**t?

 

[somerset]

Last time I checked America didn’t have a royal family (unless you count Oprah) and they seem to do OK for tourism. Then again, they have the nerve to have a democratically elected President and not a monarch appointed by ‘divine right’.

And yes, a lot of Americans do like the queen – but they definitely prefer their royalty at a distance and not on their doorstep.

democratically 'purchased' you mean,... you get the choice of two only, and those are both put there only in the name of big business...... nothing more or less, not much democracy there.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

democratically 'purchased' you mean,... you get the choice of two only, and those are both put there only in the name of big business...... nothing more or less, not much democracy there.

To be honest, now that I live in the States I’m not that concerned whether or not the royal family remains in Buck house.

 

[BuddyBoy]

thats a bit like say you haven't seen a penny of the money the TaylorWimpey brings us in construction or Rolls Royce brings us in manufacturing.

But if those companies were to withdraw from country or community it'd probably have a devastating effect on people's lives. If the monarchy were to take a jump (which I'd love to see) I doubt tourism would suffer to badly. Makes a bit of a mockery to suggest interest in England is so heavily weighted to those benefit scrounging royals. Plus we don't subsidise Rolls Royce, it isn't my money that goes to their pockets because I don't consume their product. The royals take our taxes and that's that.

 

[lawros left foot]

Ever been to Paris in the summer? It is full to the gunnells with bloody tourists, and they topped their royals over two hundred years ago. I've been to St Petersburg, and never gave it a thought that I might not meet the Czar,cos him and his family were executed a hundred years ago. If we pensioner off the whole of our royal family I am sure we would hardly see a drop in tourism, although having said that, we have been very fortunate with present day monarch, but I can't see we would continue to be this lucky every time, and could end up with someone as bad as that charmless tw@t Andrew.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But if those companies were to withdraw from country or community it'd probably have a devastating effect on people's lives. If the monarchy were to take a jump (which I'd love to see) I doubt tourism would suffer to badly. Makes a bit of a mockery to suggest interest in England is so heavily weighted to those benefit scrounging royals. Plus we don't subsidise Rolls Royce, it isn't my money that goes to their pockets because I don't consume their product. The royals take our taxes and that's that.

Someone hasn't read the other posts in this thread. The Crown Estates give more money to the Treasury than the Civil List paid out.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I don't really care either way. My beef is that 'God Save the Queen' is the worst, dullest national anthem in the world. The tune is bad enough, but the words are embarrassing, especially when sung by some opera singer before Wembley games.

And although I'm sure Her Maj is a very pleasant old lady, she's a long way down my list of people I'd like any divine being to save. Well behind, say, Caroline Lucas MP, Tim Vine or Charlie Oatway; but ahead of any member of the present cabinet (apart from Vince Cable), Mile Jedinak or the bloke in my street who always parks half a car-length from the end of the last parking space in the road.