It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Queen to receive £6 million pay rise

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

another hot topic for our UK government , while we are at it can we abolish the tory party as well as they are detrimental to society at large!

tories and monarchs out!




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Well I've already agreed there are other issues, here we are in this thread, and the Royal Family is in the spotlight.

Why should it be a distraction, and not part of the overall problem. One family, with that much profit. And thousands of other families in their 'kingdom' struggling on a daily basis.

It's simple really, make things a bit more equitable. 369 Million could provide grants which would permanently improve 35,000 families that are suffering in Britain. These represent elderly women just like the queen, who have 'peasant' status? Who can't help themselves. The queen is out of touch with these people, they exist on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Billionaire business men have made their money, however which way, and are just another human like you or me, they aren't 'royalty'. Back in the day a Queen or King ran their kingdoms and were invested with authority and responsibility to make real changes. The Queen has plenty of investments to give her income, stop giving her more and send the profit elsewhere.

On the other points you mentioned, 30 Billion tax being evaded, yeah that sounds like a big issue, how about we have a thread on that.
edit on 28-6-2017 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2017 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2017 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

my other point from another thread about UK politics is when the acts or statutes are passed they goto the queen for royal ascension to law

and the queen always passes them , but the queen still can say NO ,
so why then did she not say NO when the UK government decided to cut benefits to the disabled and forced people unfit to work into work causing further damage.

The queen could say NO after all it is written she can say NO and we have to deal with it
but she never does it

legally she has the right to stop the royal ascension and passing of laws which she doesnt agree with
apparently she is ok with forcing disabled people into work



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

my other point from another thread about UK politics is when the acts or statutes are passed they goto the queen for royal ascension to law

and the queen always passes them , but the queen still can say NO ,
so why then did she not say NO when the UK government decided to cut benefits to the disabled and forced people unfit to work into work causing further damage.


The monarch could (in theory) refuse to sign an Act put before him/her by the Government of the day, but it would have to be something unimaginably serious to warrant that. Can you imagine how people would react, if the monarch arbitrarily thwarted democracy like that? There would be uproar, to put it mildly.

In practical terms, the current monarch is far too much of a traditionalist to even think about doing so. She comes from the age of the great Empires and knows what happened to (for example) her uncles and aunts in Russia.

(There are also background reasons concerning the monarch's role in guiding Prime Ministers that are relevant, but most people would find them boring).

With a more capricious and less serious monarch, it's possible that they might refuse to sign an Act into law. I'm thinking particularly here of Prince Charles, who is a meddler by nature and is already known to have firm views on certain subjects.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Yeah that would have been a good time to VETO, but understandable as Elizabeth is so out of touch with those affected she couldn't give a rats arse.

All ceremony anyway, rarely vetos as it doesn't look nice to the supposed 'democracy' in uk and respecting peoples right to vote.

Between looking good, and helping the disabled, the Queen undoubtedly favours the former.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
That was my point , in a case where good would triumph over evil
the queen would be praised until the end of time for blocking an act that took money and help away from the disabled and poor
she would be hailed as the best person in british history

no one would complain apart from rich people



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

The thing is that in Britain's current constitutional arrangement, it is almost a proverb that the Queen would have to sign her own death warrant if it was voted into law. If it came to that, I doubt she would, but the general principle is correct - the Queen's power to withhold assent is mainly theoretical. It exists as a weapon of last resort (like the monarch's power to command the army) but using it would effectively cause civil war.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Hey yes! Get rid of the monarchy and the Tories (yaaaay! - who needs democracy?) - but wait, we would then have a one party Socialist state led by Glorious Leader Comrade Corbyn and us dissenters could look forward to starving to death in gulags while the rest of you are fed propaganda about tractor production figures whilst you live out the rest of your lives in grinding poverty whilst the elite ruling Corbynistas live in luxury.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

a one party state , why whats going to happen to all the other parties

it would nice to be rid of the tories as all they ever do is force austerity measures and sell of the publics assets
so they can make bank and we suffer
so doing the maths they are bad for business and the greater whole !



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't proposing that we 'get rid' of the Conservative Party. The current Conservative Party is very far removed from its roots, and in all probability will turn out to be a temporary phase, like Blair's "New Labour."

Those of a certain age might remember Harold Macmillan (Tory PM in the 1950s/60s) condemning Margaret Thatcher's privatisations as 'selling off the family silver'. That's how radical a departure Thatcherism was from the traditional Tory party.

The Tories in their current form have got away with their depredations for so long because Blair moved the Labour Party to the right, meaning that there was no ideological difference between the two parties worth speaking of. That period is now over, so we shall see what happens.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82
How do you 'get rid' of the Tories when 42.4% of the vote went to them in the recent general election?
That's 13,669,883 minds you need to change, no simple task.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

I was joking, you know.

You seem to forget that austerity came in because the Labour party had virtually bankrupted the country (yet again).

Remember their oh-so-hilarious "There's no money" note?

Why do you think the Tories might want austerity? Do you really think they are all evil? They would be a lot more popular without it and richer, too, so stop being so credulous about the left wing propaganda you seem to be lapping up.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon


Yes, I was replying to young Sapien82, not you.

So you think that Cameron etc are Thatcherite? I thought the Conservatives, like Blair, had been pretty much fighting for the centre ground now for many years since Thatcher.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Now I'm not sure whether or not you are addressing me in that post!

I shouldn't have butted in earlier, it just confuses things.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Sometimes I'm not sure myself!



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The bill for fixing up Buckingham Palace is small change compared to the estimated 3 and a half billion £'s estimated to fix up the Palace of Westminster. If the decision is that we want to keep these historic buildings then monarchy system or not, it's gotta be paid for.
I'm no royalist, Ireland does fine with a symbolic elected head of state, and so could we. But, if we want to preserve these buildings then the taxpayer ultimately has to pay.
Either that or just demolish it sell the land and build a Tesco Extra hypermarket. I wouldn't give a toss either way.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

to be honest i dont like any political parties they are all just as # as each other , look how they act in house of commons shouting at each other likes apes flinging their own fecal matter

look at other governments well most have calm respectful debates and get on with it , but in the UK its like watching teenagers fighting over their favourite rock group



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

So how do you propose the change exactly? Just vote for independents?
You bleat that you wish to ditch the Tories, I asked you earlier how you propose to do that when 42.4% of the vote went to them. That's 13,669,883 minds you need to change.
I'm a supporter of proprtional representation similar to the Scottish and Welsh governments, that would be a start, but bleating on ATS won't get me that.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: InceyWincey

Its just a pipe dream man , no way in hell thats happening is it !

voting for independence was one good way but there is no point in that either as there is no framework for a new constitution of scotland so totally useless

I was just talking #e anyway , how does anyone expect to change anything talking about it on ats
this is just a discussion forum. People who change things dont sit and discuss them online they are normally out acting instead of talking



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

All well and good, but I'd suggest we should remember the case of a certain well-known criminal, formerly of this parish, with the (real-life) initials "JLL".




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join