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.

 

Blair Converts To Catholicism

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
England is a country, infinite.

It is referred to as a constituent country within the context of the UK. It is still a nation, as a nation can comprise of people as well as land. We are a country insofar that we have our national teams in sport, borders and our own culture.


An English nationalists may think that, But England and Scotland are not nations in the eyes of the United Nations (i.e why the UK is represented).

All international treaties are signed by the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The country is called Great Britain. Don't believe me? read the Act of Union.

England and Scotland became a new nation called "Great Britain" under the Act.
Neither are Sovereign nations.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rilence
 


The process would be much the same as any other constitutional change. The House of Commons would start a Bill rolling, it'd go through the various committee stages & pass to the House of Lords ... and if they agree the Queen will sign an Act abolishing the monarchy and she'd fly off abroad to a happy and well deserved retirement.

It's what replaces her that's going to cause all the problems. President Thatcher ? On the day that old witch gets elected I'm sneaking on board the Queen's aeroplane and emigrating with her ... heavens, that aircraft will be standing room only.

And Infinite, of course England still exists. It didn't lose its legal status at Union ... England still exists legally ... it's got it own education system, local government structure, laws, judicial system, politics, culture, cuisine, everything really which makes up the modern nation state. Unfortunately it's still got the Scots, although hopefully that'll be rectified soon enough. But that's for another thread



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
An English nationalists may think that, But England and Scotland are not nations in the eyes of the United Nations (i.e why the UK is represented).

All international treaties are signed by the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The country is called Great Britain. Don't believe me? read the Act of Union.

England and Scotland became a new nation called "Great Britain" under the Act.
Neither are Sovereign nations.


A country doesn't have to be sovereign to be a country, infinite. Like I said, Scotland and England are constituent countries of the Union. Wales has a separate legal identity to England, but falls under English law, thus is a principality. NI is a province.



The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland remained separate until 1707, when under the Acts of Union both England and Scotland lost their individual political — though not legal — identities. This union has subsequently changed its name twice; firstly on the merger with the Kingdom of Ireland following the Act of Union in 1800 creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. Then following the secession from the union of the Irish Free State under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Throughout these changes, England (including Wales) retained a separate legal identity from its partners, with a separate legal system (English law) from those in Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland law) and Scotland (Scots law).


All the Act of Union did was unite the Crown and Parliaments. It didn't dissolve the status of England or Scotland into some ambiguous geographical area.

Feel free to argue with me, but I am right.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Scotland still has sovereignty ... or, more correctly, the people of Scotland still have sovereignty. Don't buy into the nonsense that sovereignty in the UK is solely vested in Westminster or the Crown ... it isn't.

Judgement, The Lord President in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396)


The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. ... I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament....


Scottish Sovereignty



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
All the Act of Union did was unite the Crown and Parliaments. It didn't dissolve the status of England or Scotland into some ambiguous geographical area.

Feel free to argue with me, but I am right.


No,
I am right because in order to be a country you need;

a)sovereignty
b)external recognition

Scotland and England have neither.

Under modern international law, a country is recongised by the United Nations and the family of nations. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are not. UK government does not recongise them either.

And if you read the international list of recongised countries, United Kingdom is on the list not the home nations.

Take the arguement to the United Nations if you are not happy....



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
If the majority of MP's supported it then the majority of the public would too, but they do not.


I think the term 'larger minority' was used rather than majority, but either way, the fact is that most of the UK did not want to go to war yet we still did.

Government actions very rarely reflect the sentiment of the people.

We vote in governments according to who lies the best.

They get in and screw us over.


...then we would have no Queen.


If only...



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I am right because in order to be a country you need


I am certain you believe you are right, however, if England, NI, ROE, Scotland and Wales were not countries surely they would not be allowed to play in the World Cup.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I saw this story .line on the news today, in fact Sky are still banging on about it now.

Have I missed something?

Has the rest of the world stopped?

We have a meteor possibly hitting Mars in January which could have seriousl implications:

Remnants .ing our way?

Sign of life kicked up?

Below-the-surface water exposed?

Fantastic footage taken by a rover?

I, like many people in the UK and probably the world, really couldn't give a toss if Tony Blair quite literally joined the circus!!

Give us some real news for the love of god!!!


[edit on 22/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
No,
I am right because in order to be a country you need;

a)sovereignty
b)external recognition

Scotland and England have neither.



Well, they do. Both Scotland and England are recognised outside of the UK by dozens of international bodies as separate entities. They may together form the Union, but that still doesn't preclude them from being countries. They are constituent countries within the Union. Not a terribly difficult premise to grasp.

Legally, England and Scotland are separate countries. Prove me otherwise. UK law actually stipulates this, so to be honest, I couldn't give a fudge what the UN says on the matter as it is on the statute books as such.

If Scotland wasn't a separate country, why have they a Parliament? Why is there a border? Why is there several Acts of parliament concerning on what side of the border certain towns lay? The exact same applies for Wales. And these Acts where made as recently as the 60's, 70's and 80's, not the 18th century.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Niall197
 


Under the Act of Parliament granting Scotland autonomy, technically all decisions can be blocked by the Privy council and the Scottish Parliament can be dissolved without warning by said council. Technically, we grant them autonomy as we see fit, rather than enshrining that as a permanent fixture.

Not as "sovereign" as they would hope.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by purplemonkey
i my personal opinion religion should have no place in government


Under the British monarchy system, Church and State is one entity. The Monarch is the . of the Church of England too.


Well who'da thunk it? Britain is a more Religiously intertwined society than America, despite all the calls by American Religious Fundamentalists for this right or that right .. or to take away certain rights.

Seperation of Church and State = Secular Government / Society

Britain = Non-Secular Government / Anglican Government



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
If I remember correctly, there are laws that stop the discrimination of religious beliefs being a problem in employment.

So why does this seem to be an existing problem for any of these 'top' positions ?

Religious beliefs should have no part in the job you do, unless you use your beliefs to influence the system. Then, of course, you are forcing personal opinions onto global issues rather than taking into consideration the beliefs of the whole.


I'm sooo glad you told me this.
BTW - what country are you living in? (curious)

I ask because there are no laws at all that take MY religious beliefs into account, and what I consider to be important days are ignored totally by the UK government.
I assure you, when they claim religious freedom, they mean you are free to be a Muslim, A Catholic, or any of the mainstream religions.
NONE of the minor ones enjoy the same rights or protections - it is simply a typical UK smokescreen.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neil wilkes
 


You are protected under Law despite what religion you follow. If you feel you have been persecuted, I suggest you lodge a complaint. The only thing this country does in regards to religious discrimination is barring a Catholic from becoming Monarch, but seeing as your unlikely to see that particular career option open at the Job centre, this isn't a problem.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Noooo ... I'm talking way back, before the "new" Scottish Parliament ever re-convened.

That 1954 court decision I quoted, which you can see in it's entirety here ...

en.wikipedia.org...

... states there are limits to the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, namely that it cannot legislate to remove or amend those items protected by the Act of Union, typically the Scots legal system, the Church of Scotland etc ... because the Act of Union specifically declares those items protected.

Even the government's own law officer, the Lord Advocate, conceded that Westminster simply cannot repeal or alter these fundamentals ... and to that extent the Westminster Parliament is simply not sovereign, in Scotland anyway. In fact, there's nothing in the Act of Union declaring the new British Parliament to be sovereign at all ... and quite rightly too, because in Scotland at least sovereignty always lay with the people and not Parliament.

That's why in the 1990's, when the Conservative government tried to introduce the privatisation of the public water supply in Scotland, Labour controlled councils held individual referenda ... most voted against privatisation ... and the government couldn't challenge it. And their proposed legislation was dropped, not because the government suddenly became savvy to political reality, but because their legislation was actually unworkable. That's what an awful lot of folks south of the border simply cannot grasp ... the constitutional situation in Scotland is way different than the rest of the UK.

It also means that if Westminster ever tried to legislate for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament it's considerations could be safely ... and perfectly legally ... ignored. Because the people voted for its establishment ... only the people can vote for its abolition.

The genie's out of the bottle, my friend.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Well who'da thunk it? Britain is a more Religiously intertwined society than America, despite all the calls by American Religious Fundamentalists for this right or that right .. or to take away certain rights.

Seperation of Church and State = Secular Government / Society

Britain = Non-Secular Government / Anglican Government


It's not quite that simple. Although in theory yes, there isn't really a separation of Church and State it does happen in practice (such is the weird and wonderful nature of the British Constitution). Church attendance has fallen for decades and continues to do so, and if the Church tried to interfere in the business in any serious way then it would be swiftly disestablished.

The fact that Blair kept his religion reasonably quiet whilst he was in office and waited until six months after he left Downing Street to convert to Catholicism seems to bear up this argument. If a PM talked about God as much as, say, George Bush does then it's unlikely they'd be elected at all. Even Margaret Thatcher, who had been brought up as a staunch Methodist, didn't talk about her religion very often.

[edit on 22/12/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I had a think about the political motivation for this, as I'm pretty sure it's not a personal motivation. And the only reason I could come up with, that Tony Blair would publicly convert to roman catholicism is because one day he plans to become pope.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by unnamedninja
I had a think about the political motivation for this, as I'm pretty sure it's not a personal motivation. And the only reason I could come up with, that Tony Blair would publicly convert to roman catholicism is because one day he plans to become pope.


No, he's wanted to become a Catholic for years. But due to constitutional problems and Northern Ireland, he waited till he left office.

lol at Pope Blair



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
This isn't good for the sole reason that it brings us even closer to fulfilling Biblical "end time" prophecy.

Mr. Blair is the Middle East Peace Envoy for the European Union, in fact, I'm not even sure the post existed before Blair expressed a desire to play such a role after ending his Prime Minister term.

So here we have a Charismatic man who is now Catholic(!) that is also the Middle East Peace Envoy. So let's just play along and say Mr. Blair finds a way to make a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians/most of the Islamic Radicals such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Jihad Islami, Popular Resistance Committees etc. And let's just say that when he does this, it actually sticks for 3 and 1/2 years!

Then let's say that after 3 & 1/2 years, Mr. Blair OR the person in the position of Middle East Envoy at the time somehow covertly breaks the peace agreement, or more likely causes the peace agreement to fail behind the scenes, while making it appear to be just another break down in relations.

At that point, are we not like .. halfway through the Biblical Prophecies concerning the Anti-Christ & The Beast and so forth? What if the Beast is the United Nations? Or even the European Union? Or what about the Catholic Church and the Vatican? If any of the three are present, as Mr. Blair is of all three, it would fulfill the Beast prophecy, the peace agreement prophecy, the Anti-Christ prophecies, and all that other good stuff. The Beast comes from the Sea it is written.

This sounds like the U.N. because who comes from the sea to "bring peace to the region"? Whichever region is irrelevant, its just true that any forces under a U.N. mandate come from the Sea, and just so happen to be in every single religiously significant place "bringing peace" with the exception of Mecca and to a lesser extent Israel. But Israel as a Government is in cahoots with the U.N. because the U.S.A. secretly 'owns' the U.N. and alot of us know it. Then we have Saudi Arabia in possession of Mecca, and we all know how friendly & close the Saudis and the most prominent political families of the U.S.A. are with their money and business dealings. And speaking of the U.S.A., usually any and every U.N. peacekeeping force is spear.ed by American forces, with the exception of the small conflict regions and regions where other troops are better for the job for many reasons, such as religion and ethnicity.

It looks to me like the ball of revelation, the revealing, is rolling right along its' course, gaining momentum and going downhill. It seems just about unstoppable at this point. Whether or not God is involved, the people, the men, will force these prophecies to come true upon themselves.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hi folks, first time posting...

Anyone noticed this revealing falling on the solstice? I'll have to look into it a bit more, however it's my wife's birthday and it looks like she's not the only one having several planets aligned in her honour!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Some questions I'm curious about as I've never studied anything about British Government and in particular England.

Can the Church overrule the Government in England?

Why does anyone on any side want Monarchs or a Privileged Class?

Can you be punished if you do not act appropriately in the presence of Royalty? If you refuse to bow before the Queen what happens to you?

Does everyone in England have equal access to the Government?

Can any citizen who wishes become a member of the Ruling Class or is that limited to Special Families?

Does the person who cleans the toilets in a Palace have the exact same rights as the Queen? Does this person also have the same opportunities as the Queen?

In England why is the Church still allowed to be involved with the Government in the first place?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join