The Queen's Speech.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It was actually an honest question.

What does BREXIT have to do with the Queen suddenly speaking out on politics?

BTW...if you've been reading any of my posts you will know I am a strong supporter of the UK leaving the EU, and have been celebrating your recent elections right along with you.

I'm fully aware of your stance on the Brexit and the rest of the NWO.

As I've said earlier in this thread, this is a time that Britain needs to stay together, remain united and be great.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
but no sitting monarch since the reinstatement of the monarchy* has ever refused to accept and ask the winning prime ministerial candidate to form a government on there behalf (they technically work for the monarch not the public).

That date is too early, because "Commons majorities" did not really exist until the party system got formally organised in the mid-Vistorian era. The king was still choosing his own Prime Ministers up to the nineteenth century. William Pitt the younger was originally the king's choice, and then won a General Election with that help behind the scenes. Robert Peel (1834) was the last Prime Minister to be appointed after the king had sacked the previous government on his own initiative. Queen Victoria was educated under the old system, and always felt entitled at least to veto individual Cabinet appointments. Even when the parties were organised, they did not necessarily have elected leaders, which still gave the monarch a lot of leeway. Victoria tried to veto Gladstone the second time round, and only gave way grudgingly when her preferred candidate said he couldn't form a government without Gladstone, and Gladstone would refuse to work under anybody else. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was the last man to be chosen Prime Minister first, and confirmed as the new party leader afterwards.

a reply to: swanne

Well, the class war in this nation is raging, and the division palpable on rather a few levels.

The UKs problem is the same as any other first-world nation, far too few haves, far too many have nots.

I just hope we make it through the next decade relatively unscathed and that my weans are extended the same opportunities that my own generation was lucky enough to have.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Queens speech, because anything the royal waste of space says actually means anything, c'mon people, get real.

You'd be better off spending your time doing other things with your life

I had literally nothing else to do. On this occasion though I'm glad I watched it as it made me feel secure about the Brexit.

This is a big f#cking deal, you do know that don't you?

It's akin to the United States declaring independence from the British Empire...

Do you know what 'naive' means?

I do and I usually have little to no faith the future of our country but this feels different.

The queen is reassuring you through the lies that have already been fed to her, I'm sorry if that breaks your faith in any way, but I believe truth is more important than the comfort of reassuring lies to believe in

a reply to: swanne

There was one system, ancient Judge period Israel.

God in the old testament grew angry because the people wanted a king as all the non Jewish tribes around them had king's and the felt insecure because HE is there King so eventually he gave them Saul whom soon angered him - power corrupt's, then he gave them David and eventually he too angered him but at least God liked David more and so he kept that line and promised eventually to send his own Son the Messiah to be there King, but of course the old testament also predicted the entirety of what came to pass including the crucifixion which was a Roman punishment that was used there at the time of that prediction.

Basically GOD and an (Un-Corrupted) Priestly class whom were not meant to get rich from it were the ideal government, as part of that there were rules as well from the time of Moses/Moshe and Aaron, Sanctuary city's, looking after the poor and the widow, the orphan and even right's for slaves so that while slavery was not outright banned the laws recognized that the tribes of Israel had been slaves so slaves were to be brought into the light of the truth, not abused and to be freed after a few years and paid for there service.

Also Usery (charging interest on loan's) was strictly outlawed by God..

But how long was it before vested interests took over and again and again they broke the law as we indeed all do knowingly and unknowingly (I will forgive them what they know not).

So basically it mean's good government is almost impossible on this earth, only divine government can achieve that and stay un-corrupted but even when the Lord gave someone that they rebelled against it, did not have faith in him and wanted a king and standing army of there own instead.

But I digress, real perfect government is a pipe dream, even well meaning socialist agenda's almost always fail and become corrupt dystopia while runaway capitalist society is equally evil, only small government work's (Kibbutz) but in the bigger picture such small society's are always devoured by the more powerful and aggressive neighbor.

We can dream of a Utopia but until we as a race change our very nature true democracy, true just government that work's for everyone and fair and honest leadership will always be a pipe dream, it is not that we will never attain it though that matters, what matters far more is that we never give up trying to attain it as it is an ideal that we must all continue to strive toward, the alternative is to leave the power hungry abusers of power uncontested.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: LABTECH767
but no sitting monarch since the reinstatement of the monarchy* has ever refused to accept and ask the winning prime ministerial candidate to form a government on there behalf (they technically work for the monarch not the public).

That date is too early, because "Commons majorities" did not really exist until the party system got formally organised in the mid-Vistorian era. The king was still choosing his own Prime Ministers up to the nineteenth century. William Pitt the younger was originally the king's choice, and then won a General Election with that help behind the scenes. Robert Peel (1834) was the last Prime Minister to be appointed after the king had sacked the previous government on his own initiative. Queen Victoria was educated under the old system, and always felt entitled at least to veto individual Cabinet appointments. Even when the parties were organised, they did not necessarily have elected leaders, which still gave the monarch a lot of leeway. Victoria tried to veto Gladstone the second time round, and only gave way grudgingly when her preferred candidate said he couldn't form a government without Gladstone, and Gladstone would refuse to work under anybody else. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was the last man to be chosen Prime Minister first, and confirmed as the new party leader afterwards.

I will fully accept your correction, after re-reading my post I felt something was wrong but am a bit mentally tired.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Queens speech, because anything the royal waste of space says actually means anything, c'mon people, get real.

You'd be better off spending your time doing other things with your life

I had literally nothing else to do. On this occasion though I'm glad I watched it as it made me feel secure about the Brexit.

This is a big f#cking deal, you do know that don't you?

It's akin to the United States declaring independence from the British Empire...

Do you know what 'naive' means?

I do and I usually have little to no faith the future of our country but this feels different.

The queen is reassuring you through the lies that have already been fed to her, I'm sorry if that breaks your faith in any way, but I believe truth is more important than the comfort of reassuring lies to believe in

No hearts broken here pal. I am watching the global meltdown.

As I have been for the last couple of decades. Save your apologies bud, it's not your fault...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Maybe but unlikely.

I wouldn't rule out a collaborative agenda but at the end of the day, we need solidarity as we exit the EU.

Stay safe Lags, hopefully France will follow suit.

No it's entirely written by the government of the day. If Labour had won she would have been reading out a list of Labour policies.

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

A few final gestures from an outbound monarch looking to be remembered for final acts instead of usual acts.

This may be a parting gesture but overall, the Queen has not been bad politically.

Despite the personal privacy of the royal family, the Queen has been quite open about political issues and seems to have a high moral standard.

Much like the branches of government and impeachment in the US system, the monarchy in the Westminster system allows for the removal of a rogue or tyrannical government. To a large extent, the monarchy is clearly far less partisan than US Congressional oversight, has superior separation of powers and more checks and balances than the three branch system. In this regard, the Westminster system is superior to the US Constitutional Republic.

Can't wait for Lizzy to turn up and boost my broadband. I guess it's not free or she would have mentioned it?.

There's as much chance of the above happening as there is of Lizzy actually knowing what the # these words on this paper mean.

She gets handed a slip of paper, told to read it out then receives her check for £82.2 million.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Can't wait for Lizzy to turn up and boost my broadband. I guess it's not free or she would have mentioned it?.

There's as much chance of the above happening as there is of Lizzy actually knowing what the # these words on this paper mean.

She gets handed a slip of paper, told to read it out then receives her check for £82.2 million.

It really doesn't work like that. She's not Hillary Clinton...

a reply to: chr0naut

Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from a civil suit or criminal prosecution.

A similar, stronger rule applies in foreign courts, namely state immunity where our royals are concerned.

These people are above the law of the land because they own the majority of said land.

As far as i can see checks and balances mean very little to there sorts, monies and power on the other hand, well that's there stock and trade and then some.

She smells like oatmeal.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Maybe but unlikely.

I wouldn't rule out a collaborative agenda but at the end of the day, we need solidarity as we exit the EU.

Stay safe Lags, hopefully France will follow suit.

No it's entirely written by the government of the day. If Labour had won she would have been reading out a list of Labour policies.

Ok 👌

originally posted by: Homefree
She smells like oatmeal.

That's because she's a Granny.

a reply to: Homefree

If the catch you sniffing the Queen, it better be out a £20 note.

Else they are probably going to lock you up in the nuthouse at her pleasure, to be honest.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Maybe but unlikely.

I wouldn't rule out a collaborative agenda but at the end of the day, we need solidarity as we exit the EU.

Stay safe Lags, hopefully France will follow suit.

No it's entirely written by the government of the day. If Labour had won she would have been reading out a list of Labour policies.

Ok 👌

Glad you now understand.

double

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

How about to go up a few notches. She could announce a tax on the richest tax haven in the world. The Corporation of London.

I mean she owns it after all :-)

a reply to: chr0naut

Much like the branches of government and impeachment in the US system, the monarchy in the Westminster system allows for the removal of a rogue or tyrannical government.

Not really no. Its still owned by monarchy. Why do you think for example British intelligent agencies loose the dossier of the paedophilia in the British Establishment.