Queen's dismay at Blair legacy

Queen's dismay at Blair legacy

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: removed portion of copy paste source material, please review the following link...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

As much as I dislike the Monarchy system and its undemocratic working over the United Kingdom, I have to agree with Lizzy in this case. Yeah, Republicans do agree with the Queen now and again.

The Queen is right to say that Blair has basically ignored the Commonwealth (the former British Empire) and spent too much time in America. She especially dislike how the army has been treated (which the Monarchy is the head of) under Blair and feels the Prime has "divided the nation".

She can, if she wants, use her veto (like a President) but its very controversial and Parliament would probably remove her if she did.

But one should note that its rare for the Queen to express her views this strong. She hasn't done this since she declared Margaret Thatcher to be uncaring, confrontational and socially divisive.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Parliament can not remove the Queen, as she is an integral part of Parliament and the form of Government we have. The fact she has to sign a bill to give it ascent removes any possibility of Parliament removing the Queen. In actuality, the Sovereign can remove Parliament when he/she wishes, but only does so at the end of a particular Parliament on the advice of the PM.

Also, popular support for the monarchy would make such a move dangerous, especially if what she did was seen to be for the good of the nation. The only way Parliament could remove the Queen with any legitimacy would be via a referendum, which in all likelihood would be rejected.

The Royal prerogative actually gives the Monarch extensive powers, but the last time a Monarch used the veto on a Parliamentary Bill was in the 1700's.

I think alot of people respect the Queen for her views more than any politician, whether they are republican (of which there are not many) or a monarchist.

As for the subject matter, i think alot of people are dismayed at what has become of the UK since 1997 and the general consensus is that the Government is woefully out of touch with the country and what we actually want. They seem more concerned with what they THINK we want, as opposed to what we actually want.

[edit on 27/5/07 by stumason]

As a republican, I can tell you that support for the Monarchy system is fading, especially the idea of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. And I hate to point out that Parliament can remove the Monarchy system, its Parliament that accepts a new monarch. Thats how a constitutional monarchy works.

Edward VIII was never crowned King because Parliament would not accept him marrying Wallis Simpson and it would of been seen immoral by the Church. So he Abdication. He NEVER was crowned.

Wikipedia

The same could happen to Charles if Parliament refuse to accept Camilla as Queen (which would require an act of Parliament). Parliament could ask William to become King if they will not accept Charles or could remove the whole system altogether.



Which both Gordon Brown and David Cameron wish to remove and give to Parliament.

Thanks for the info, stumason.

As for out of touch politicians, we are suffering the same fate here in the US. The latest example is immigration legislation, whereby the politicians are ignoring the will of the people in regards to amnesty for illegal immigrants. There will be hell to pay come election day for these slackers.

Sorry infinite, but Parliament doesn't have the power to remove the Monarchy, as much as you would like to believe. Can you explain the legal mechanics as to how that would work? The succession to the Throne is governed by the Act of union 1707. Granted, King Edward VIII had an act of Parliament to remove him, but that was the only mechanic to allow him to abdicate, which was his choice. He did so only to save the monarchy from the negativity surrounding his marriage. Had he wished, he dcould have been King regardless and wasn't forced at all (he was, however, heavily "advised" and there were many arguments). In fact, the Act which allowed him to abdicate still needed Royal Ascent to become Law.

Also, as a republican, your views on support "fading" could be taken with a pinch of salt, especially as your from Ireland

Granted, the public isn't warm on the idea of King Charles III, but they are positively boiling on the view of King William III. Recent polls actually show support for Charles and Camilla is increasing, since the whole Diana fiasco. The public don't want her to be Queen, but she doesn't have to be. If you ask people how they feel on that, the polls actually reflect a marked increase over if she was to be Queen.



[edit on 27/5/07 by stumason]

stumason

are you a reader of the BBC comment page? there is an ALARMING amount of calls for a revolution coming out now. I remember reading years ago, about another British civil war or revolution happening in the United Kingdom.

the idea of a armed rebellion is highly unlikely, due to strict gun control (which is a good thing) but I would not rule out mass protests that could effectively bring down a government if this tough stance on ripping up our democracy continues.

Not really, and me being an Irishmen living in the UK, it has nothing to do with it



But, the Act of Union is NOT protected under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Which gives the government a WIDE range of powers in an emergency. It could rip up that Act if it wants. Act of Settlement 1701 is not protected either and that is the main act for succession.

The government can even repeal without a State of Emergency if it needed. If England and Scotland break up, then the Act is no more.

Its quite amazing how much power Blair has given to the executive.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by infinite]

Revolution against what though? I'm all for revolution to rid us of the corrupt political system, but the Monarchy is removed from that. If William came out tomorrow and called for people to rise up and follow him in toppling the Government, I would support him over any other person. If some nobody or a left-wing Guerrilla rose up, I would fight against them.

Call for revolution are one thing, but what exactly are the calls against? I hardly hear a single bad word from anybody about overthrowing the monarchy, but everyone I know wants rid of the Government.

I was referring to the government.

Wanna hear something scary? under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the government can repeal or change the Act of Settlement 1701 so that a non member of the royal family could take the throne (its possible)

thats how much power the government now has. Blair could, if he wanted, make himself King/President in a emergency and Parliament would be powerless to stop him. The executive has 30 days to do what it likes without fear of parliament veto's.

Haha, you'd be different from every other Irishman I know then!



But thats the Government doing something quite unconstitutional and would not be supported by the People. Then you'll have your revolution, but not against the monarchy, but rather against Westminster.

England and Scotland won't break up either, that's a silly pipe dream. It would scupper the Scots something horrible if they did that, and they know it.



Surely he is part of the Legislative, not executive branch? He has made the role of PM very Presidential, much to alot of people's disgust, but that doesn't make him the executive.

Indeed, so peoples calls for revolution are rather a symptom of distrust in the Political system, rather than a wish to become a republic.



Really? I have never actually read this Act.... Me thinks I should...

Whatever anyone's opinions about the Royals, I don't think we should tar them with the same brush as we do the Government. They do good, are part of our History and are, despite the ravings of some left-wing elements, still very popular.

As I said, if the Monarch tried to get rid of Parliament for a good reason, I and many other's would support them. The other way around? I think the Government would be in very hot water...

The government is supposedly, under constitutional law, representing the Queen so the cabinet is part of the executive. Prime Minister (elect) Brown wishes to seperate the executive and the legislative, which is like the system in Holland where the Cabinet and the Monarch are very close.

Prime Minister is not defined under Constitutional law, it doesn't really appear and it's powers are not defined either. The only reason we have one was because George I couldn't speak English and didn't care about Parliament. So Sir Robert Walpole decided to head the government.

Civil Contingencies Act 2004



The Act even gives power to extend the duration of parliament.



But if the government has a majority, it could whip up enough support to extend the period. Scary eh?

And to think, the media didn't cover this Act at all....

Ah, fair enough. I see what you mean now. In that case, one could argue that we don't have a legislative/executive as one are the same, seeing as cabinet is made up of MP's (mostly).

Although I do remember reading that cabinet minister's don't have to be MP's at all, it's just the done thing. In theory, you could have a bunch of unelected people in charge of every Ministry.

And your saying they want to enact this Emergency bill soon?

Ooh-er matron....

yep.

You could. Heck, the Prime Minister can be from the House of Lords...so can the whole cabinet. The Queen can appoint them all if she likes.



well, its passed and in law.

Remember my other thread about John Reid saying he might declare an emergency? you are starting to see what I mean now.

Indeed.....

Still, you may have swung me around to supporting your revolutionary cause , but I'll only fight for you if you keep the Monarchy hehe..

Sorry, I'm a staunch Monarchist. I actually wish for the day when the Queen grows some balls and moves against Parliament. The whole system is antiquated, self-serving and in need of a shakedown. Someone needs to grab it by the horns and make it so. It would be best if the Queen did it, as the Army would support her.

Actually, I've been reading up on Edward VIII and it seems that he had some radical idea's about being more in touch with the people and reforming the Political system. Wasn't popular with PM Baldwin and is one of the reasons why he he wanted him to abdicate.

For obvious reason, I have to declare that I am not planning a revolution. I think I can still get locked up under British Law for calling for such a thing



Well, I'm a hardline Republican who feels that Parliament should grab the Crown and post it to Canada

I doubt you can. Socialists, Communists and Right-wing radicals do that all the time.

Not a very good start, infi, if your afraid of the Government already



Bit of a contradiction there, chap. You want Parliament to get rid of the Monarchy, when it's Parliament and the Government that's the problem?