Dear British people, wake up!

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


I think you might be selling us a bit short there, the UK is very much a major player in the world. It is one of the largest economies, one of the largest Military spenders, we're world leaders in high tech stuff such as nano-tech, genetics, pharmaceuticals, software and the like, we have the worlds financial centre (which carries a lot of weight)..

I could go on, but it is a quirky British thing to not blow your own trumpet and to talk ourselves down, you're just doing what comes naturally




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tikitiboo






I also agree with previous posters that Charles will hand it over to William, Charles messed up. William will be king
edit on 27-1-2013 by Tikitiboo because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by Tikitiboo because: (no reason given)


Charles cannot pass the crown on without first getting crowned and then abdicating as theres nothing in the rules that allows the heir to give up their place in the line of succession



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by samerulesapply

Now, on the flip side of that...I need to ask, at what point will the armed americans do what they claim they need their guns to do...i'e overthrow their tyrranical government, becuase that's what they are, we all know it. I'm unarmed but feel I need to act, it's real and eating away inside of me. A handful of unarmed people just isn't enough, and trying to convince people to open their eyes is a waste of time.

You have your guns, you have enough knowledge to know what's happening...so when does it begin? Do they have to start rounding citizens up and impose martial law before people take back what is rightfully theirs?



In my mind I always hear 'Salami Tactics' when I hear about citizens overthrowing a tyrannical government.
An Oppressive Government is never going to put the US people in a position where they feel they have no alternative but to storm Washington with firearms. For this reason, 'I' can't see an armed uprising ever happening.

The reference to Salami Tactics is explained here www.youtube.com... where The Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government is giving the UK Prime Minister varying scenarios to the USSR invading Western Europe.
It's well worth 5 mins of your life watching it.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


There is one thing - he can marry a Catholic...

That automatically excludes him from succeeding.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Ah true......but surely marrying a horse should make him unfit as well



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
please - queenie is powerless - read John D. Coleman 'Committee of 300' or just as you say (not me i use start page) google him.
i 'heard' some of you on the boobtube and quite frankly - giving up anything is abdication - and yes you are responsible and i will call you out for giving up any measure of freedom and independence.
my gen (the boomers) are not responsible for woodie wilson giving up the unfed b.s. bank of the u.s. and yet i pass out dvd's every chance i get at a cost to my ego w/ the 'citizens' that spew various comments passing by and turning up their royal noses.
drop the pretense.
the truth may set you free but guns will keep you free.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Heisenberg59
 


The Uk is not the only country in north-west europe with a constitutional monarchy. There is also Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands and Belgium.

All these countries are placed higher on the least corrupt index than the US by "Transparency International" and are in fact very stable.

I think there is a lot to be said for a seperate Head of State and head of armed forces from a head of government. I have no doubt that the government would soon squash a monarch who tried sending people to the Tower without trial and would be fully supported by the British public. On the other hand, I think the British public would support a monarch who dismissed a Prime Minister who decided he would be the Great Leader and not hold elections indefinitely.

So there are stable balances of power going on here which have developed over centuries. Probably because of this we are not interested in collecting millions of guns which so many Americans appear to be saying they must have to fight a tyrannical government.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Why would they want to try? Right now they are Royalty and don't really have to do nothing why put the pressure of running the country onto a job in which you don't have to do anything but wave and smile.

They have nothing to gain by it what so ever. Infact Royalty having no power but existing and considered still 'Royal' is quite an epic chapter in the history or Royalty

I'd be the most laziest Royal in history
edit on 27-1-2013 by Sparta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
It's a nonsensical question.
The royal family are government endorsed and funded celebrities. But celebrities non the less.
You might as well ask what we'd do if Stephen Fry or George Clooney decided to grasp for power. It's the stuff of bad fiction.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by region331
It's a nonsensical question.
The royal family are government endorsed and funded celebrities. But celebrities non the less.
You might as well ask what we'd do if Stephen Fry or George Clooney decided to grasp for power. It's the stuff of bad fiction.


Well its not quite like that. Soldiers, judges, MP's, police etc don't swear an oath of loyalty to Stephen Fry or George Clooney but they do to the Queen.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Do you think they take the oath seriously though? Or is it just a bit of pageantry and pomp?

Do you think its an oath that they'd blindly follow against all common sense, or against their own sense of self preservation or for the preservation of a functioning society.
edit on 27-1-2013 by region331 because: clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Heisenberg59
 


and while we are showing some of our national eejits, here's phil the greek for you...



On being offered fine Italian wines by Giuliano Amato, the former Prime Minister, at a dinner in Rome, he is said to have uttered: "Get me a beer. I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer!"


www.telegraph.co.uk...



And that is actually why he is so priceless (although that quote is actually probably an urban legend, I've also heard it as when offered a selection of fines wines he replied "Get me a lager, I don't care what kind as long as it's cold"). Now that's royal power for you!!!
edit on 27-1-2013 by something wicked because: layout



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by region331
 


Exactly... Soldiers are people too.

That said, it would depend on the situation as they are not fond of the Politicians. If the Monarch wanted to get rid of a blatantly unpopular Government that was ruining the nation or was treasonous (hmmmmm........) then I suspect the soldiers would fall in line and do so, but mainly out of respect for the people, not because an old dear told them too.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Despite my opinions on the monarchy, one thing I have noticed here on ATS recently, is the fear of tyranny and needing protection from it. I do not fear a tyranny in this country and never have. Maybe I'm too naive, but in general, we are a pretty moderate lot, not likely to vote in a tyrannical regime. I certainly don't feel I need to prepare for the day I would need to take up arms against the state.

No fan of the current coalition or the opposition on offer, but at least we don't have extremist parties gaining popularity here, unlike the rest of Europe.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Dp
edit on 27-1-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Indeed!

Even during the heyday of Fascism in the 30's, the UK Fascist party was never popular and people even turned out on mass to counter their marches.

We also never got into the whole revolutionary thing, probably because we got such a stable constitutional settlement after the Civil War there was never a real need.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
The queen and her family can go Fork themselves...there, you heard it from a British citizen....they are powerless...just a tourist attraction like Blackpool or barrow on Furness..


Tourist attractions don't have private armies at their beck and call.

You want to change Britain, you'd need an army and a rival to the throne to try and pull it off.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Despite my opinions on the monarchy, one thing I have noticed here on ATS recently, is the fear of tyranny and needing protection from it. I do not fear a tyranny in this country and never have. Maybe I'm too naive, but in general, we are a pretty moderate lot, not likely to vote in a tyrannical regime. I certainly don't feel I need to prepare for the day I would need to take up arms against the state.

No fan of the current coalition or the opposition on offer, but at least we don't have extremist parties gaining popularity here, unlike the rest of Europe.


It's not naive at all. If you're suspicious of your short-term elected representatives or the framework in which they operate then it's probably all over. It can only be that there's no smoke wiithout fire or you're delusional.

I think the way our Politics in the UK works is a Trinity. We have the Politicians, the Press and the People.
The Press push the news and campaigns on the back of what they know they can sell to the people. They have a good sense of what is outrageous or unjust (most of the time). The reality is the Press is the only balance to the power of the Politicians. The Politicians only respond and take action directly to the allegations of the Press, not the People. But the press respond to the People.

I think if you take the Press out of the equation then you might have to form a Mob with pitchforks or dare I say Guns, to keep the Politicians in line. Otherwise the system has no Feedback.

edit on 27-1-2013 by region331 because: spelling
edit on 27-1-2013 by region331 because: more spelling



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
There is a problem with your warning.

The UK/Canada/Australia/Other British over seas territories are owned by the Queen, She has full control and many powers.

If you don't like that, then leave HER country.

Also it is not for the Americans to stick their noses onto other countries businesses.

Also I don't know what rubbish you have been reading to say we have no means to protect ourselves, just more Americans ignorance and stupidity. Seriously do any of you have an IQ over 10 ?

We all have the right to hunting rifles, those are more than adequate to protect ourselves.
edit on 27-1-2013 by dmsuse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by region331
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Do you think they take the oath seriously though? Or is it just a bit of pageantry and pomp?

Do you think its an oath that they'd blindly follow against all common sense, or against their own sense of self preservation or for the preservation of a functioning society.
edit on 27-1-2013 by region331 because: clarification


I had to take that oath (I renounced it on leaving the army though
) It basically means you are a slave to the forces in control. So a soldier is bound to serve in the monarch's armed forces and can be punished for this and that etc.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join