This thread is now full, and replying is disabled.
Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| shit_sub |
... cos he'll inevitably make such a stuff up of it we can finally do away with an institution so fundamentally contrary to the meritocratic, democratic principles we keep trying, euphemistically, to "export" around the world, that it makes a mockery of the british people (not to mention parliament).
no?
| 6 Nov 11, 10:21 AM proccie UK(HP), 6 yrs   |
Thank you for that link, I did not know about. I am annoyed that in a democracy I am not allowed to know what parliamentary bills he has been consulted on and whether he has used his veto on them or not. Just as I am disgusted by the "behind the scenes power" evident in the latest St Paul's scandal, I find this unacceptable. What the fuck does the Corporation of the city and London do and why does it exist in today's modern world? Some years back A BDSM club lost it's planning permission due to an objection from Southwark Cathedral. I know that the bishop at the time and the Cathedral Chapter didn't care one way or the other, but were pressurised by just this sort of behind the scenes power wielded by the Corporation of the City of London. The corridors of power need a good hosing out with a power washer.
Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping. | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 11:07 AM Shypeachybottom UK, 20 mths |
I am pro-monarchy (the Queen or William) but don't have any time for Charles. I am in complete agreement with @proccie that it is shocking to discover that in a democracy (a) he has ANY veto over legislation (he is neither an elected official or the reigning sovereign) and (b) I am not automatically informed or allowed to know what parliamentary bills he has been consulted on and whether he has used his veto on them or not. Sounds like this will become a regular and ongoing source of Freedom of Information requests and rightly so! There's a somebody I'm longing to see, I hope that he turns out to be, someone to watch over me | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 3:25 PM Abraxus UK(WC), 12 yrs |
On a technical point. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of what difference it makes, but I thought that the UK was a constitutional monarchy, as opposed to a democracy. The level of authority given to the crown would I guess then be dependent upon the nature of that constitution. Rightly or wrongly then I assume this is why he's allowed to meddle in certain things. | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:14 PM Siglorel  UK(RG), 11 mths |
Monachy? Not sure with the power wielded by ACPO. Doesn't that private company/trade union hybrid have power over a number of things like internment without trial under the prevention of terrorism act? Looks more like a police state to me. Notwithstanding the awesome contribution to public life of the current Queen I think I would prefer a republic... See worlds on worlds compose one universe, observe how system into system runs | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:23 PM idonna UK(SM), 21 mths |
I bet Queen was asked in the same manner and Will will.
it has nothing to do with the fact that Charles owns Duchy. They are landowners and as long as thil "loophole" exists the government has to follow th law. What is more worrying that it isin existence and not pulicly acknowledged. I have no problem with law being followed, more with the fact that someone up there keeps it secret. | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:29 PM shit_sub UK(W), 5 yrs |
most welcome
interesting article about that in new statesman not long ago.
i'm not sure even the rivers of ancient greece'd be up to that herculean task (though they may yet get a chance to try) | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:45 PM idonna UK(SM), 21 mths |
.....
all the same, it begs the question. what are our elected representatives doing going bowing and scraping to anyone but us?
......
they are following the law - what else? however we interpret what the curent relationship betweem the state, parlament and the monarchy is , there's law which underpins that relationship, government had to consult as I understang, wheter it was Labour or the Tories no need to put any furtnher spin on it | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:47 PM shit_sub UK(W), 5 yrs |
yeah, sorry, i'll reinstate my post. (must. stop. deleting. such a bad habit)
a constitutional monarchy in which almost all powers are delegated, either by statute or convention, to parliament. i consulted a lecturer in constitutional law (we were chatting anyway!) who thought it was highly unlikely charles had ever actually effectively wielded a veto. he pointed out that he'd tried over the hunting bill and it still went through. all the same, it begs the question. what are our elected representatives doing going bowing and scraping to anyone but us? | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:53 PM shit_sub UK(W), 5 yrs |
um, i don't think anyone had got as far as party politics yet, though no doubt it was just round the corner. the law isn't static. if a loophole has existed whereby the democratic will of parliament was being frustrated, it should have been closed, not accommodated. and even if democracy hasn't been frustrated, it is deeply hypocritical of ministers of state to be publicly seeking our votes on the one hand and privately seeking royal consent on the other. Edited 6 Nov 11, 7:56 PM by shit_sub | |||
| 6 Nov 11, 7:54 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
Why on earth would they do that? They can bow and scrape to Murdoch and he'll get the plebs on side. The corporate media have, until recently, controlled public opinion, and ergo the bowing and scraping has to be towards corporate interests. The times they may be a-changing. Gordon Brown proved that, for all his chronic flaws, it was still possible for a candidate as dodgy as he to stand up to the -entire- media and not lose. He didn't win either, but he clung onto enough to prove that Murdoch can't deliver elections the way he used to. Point is though, the monarchy is about done. It's certainly spent as the power brokers in the UK. The big confrontation at the moment is between corporate interests and the public good, and the attempts around the world to loosen the stranglehold on power enjoyed by the '1%'. Compared to corporate interests the monarchy is almost sanctified. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. |
