I believe the U.K. citizens should repeal/defunct the process of the Royal Prerogative

In this day and age, this concept is outdated and dangerous to a free society. For those that are unaware, the Royal Prerogative, is, basically :

The prerogative appears to be historically and as a matter of fact nothing else than the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown. The prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown's original authority ... Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of the prerogative.

Definition from Wikipedia

This idea that an entire kingdom can be ruled by the whim of a single person (although modern versions do require approval of Parliament, which is really just a rubber stamp approval) is simply irresponsible to it's people. There is no need for this amount of power to be in the hands of a single person here in the 21st century. This 13th century idea (yes, that's an 800 year span), and is no longer relevant to modern life.....and....could be used to the detriment of the law abiding citizens. Do you as U.K. citizens really think it is in your best interest to live like this today? To live under the ever present thought of your life being irreparably changed on the complete whim of a single person?

For over 200 years, the American system of 3 branches of government completely removes this single aspect of a monarchy. Is it perfect, no, but it does remove the power of change from the mind (which could be mentally unstable) of a single person. So, to the citizens of the United Kingdom, I say repeal this aspect of your ruling class....step into the 21st Century.

The Queen can't just control the country. The UK is doing well, better than the US in that sense. It's fine, and the royal family brings it loads of money through tourism. I wouldn't be worrying about the UK if I were you.

The powers there for in emergency situations (like parliament being blown up and no one around to take charge) but for day to day sense its the parliaments job to use it and her to rubber stamp it and if she did something without parliaments blessing it would cause a consitutional crisis which may just be enough to remove those last formal powers away from the crown to parliament which i think would then be putting all the power in one place and it would be easy for a rogue parliament to happen as there would be no one who could legally stand up to them

Mate the Crown might be the only thing left standing between you being jolly old England and being ruled from Brussels and being a Provence of the "United Euro' Union" Although there flag has stars on it too.

Originally posted by SpearMint
The Queen can't just control the country. The UK is doing well, better than the US in that sense. It's fine, and the royal family brings it loads of money through tourism. I wouldn't be worrying about the UK if I were you.

edit on 3-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

If U.K. citizens can convey their opinions and stress their desires for the US to abolish the 2nd Amendment, why can't an American ask for the same courtesy of them (to criticize and ask for change the their ruling body)?

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The powers there for in emergency situations (like parliament being blown up and no one around to take charge) but for day to day sense its the parliaments job to use it and her to rubber stamp it and if she did something without parliaments blessing it would cause a consitutional crisis which may just be enough to remove those last formal powers away from the crown to parliament which i think would then be putting all the power in one place and it would be easy for a rogue parliament to happen as there would be no one who could legally stand up to them

Just as the American 2ndAmendment is there for emergency situations? Same argument can be had there too....

Originally posted by PLAYERONE01
Mate the Crown might be the only thing left standing between you being jolly old England and being ruled from Brussels and being a Provence of the "United Euro' Union" Although there flag has stars on it too.

Well if it is the destiny of the U.K. to be ruled by the EU, then who are the citizens to stop it from happening? Why hold on to an archaic 800 year old document/idea that is no longer relevant to modern times?

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by SpearMint
The Queen can't just control the country. The UK is doing well, better than the US in that sense. It's fine, and the royal family brings it loads of money through tourism. I wouldn't be worrying about the UK if I were you.

edit on 3-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

If U.K. citizens can convey their opinions and stress their desires for the US to abolish the 2nd Amendment, why can't an American ask for the same courtesy of them (to criticize and ask for change the their ruling body)?

The current system in the UK is doing no harm, it works well. The two are very, very different.

This idea that an entire kingdom can be ruled by the whim of a single person (although modern versions do require approval of Parliament, which is really just a rubber stamp approval) is simply irresponsible to it's people. There is no need for this amount of power to be in the hands of a single person here in the 21st century. . To live under the ever present thought of your life being irreparably changed on the complete whim of a single person?

You've got this entirely the wrong way round, because you make the mistake of confusing the fiction with reality.
It is the monarch who is " just rubber-stamp approval" with the government making the decisions
E.g. the famous "right to declare war without consulting Parliament" is actually, in practice, the government's power to declare war without consulting Parliament, which is why the radical politician Wedgewood Benn wanted to abolish it.

Listen; During the Abdication crisis of 1936, Edward VIII wasn't even allowed to MAKE A RADIO SPEECH to the people. Why not? Because that would not be "following the advice of his ministers".
If Obama can make a speech on television without permission from his Cabinet, he has more real power than any British monarch.

So the British don't feel "oppressed by the whim of a single person", because we know darn well that we're not.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by SpearMint
The Queen can't just control the country. The UK is doing well, better than the US in that sense. It's fine, and the royal family brings it loads of money through tourism. I wouldn't be worrying about the UK if I were you.

edit on 3-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

If U.K. citizens can convey their opinions and stress their desires for the US to abolish the 2nd Amendment, why can't an American ask for the same courtesy of them (to criticize and ask for change the their ruling body)?

The current system in the UK is doing no harm, it works well. The two are very, very different.

I respectfully disagree, I see no difference here. There can be harm....Maxatoria here even said "...powers there for in emergency situations". So is the 2nd Amendment..."powers there for in emergency situations". The difference is the power is in the hands of the people and not the ruling class.

I guess the U.K. folks that are so quick to demand the American 2nd Amendment is old and outdated are a bit hypocritical when it comes to their own ruling class.

Shame really...

reply to post by Krakatoa

Some of us were just putting you right on a matter of information, and would not deny your right to do the same.

I think you were hoping for more anger in the reactions than you actually got.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Comparing the possible actions of one person who needs permission of 600+ other people to do anything versus an act that allows 300+ million people to go around armed with no permission from anyone is a bit of comparing apples and oranges

For the monarch to actually take control would require such a major problem that there would be no known way to handle it and would be in the very very very very last resort category not something like the 2nd ammendment which is used millions of times a day

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Comparing the possible actions of one person who needs permission of 600+ other people to do anything versus an act that allows 300+ million people to go around armed with no permission from anyone is a bit of comparing apples and oranges

For the monarch to actually take control would require such a major problem that there would be no known way to handle it and would be in the very very very very last resort category not something like the 2nd ammendment which is used millions of times a day

With all due respect, I do not agree. In order to have the ability to enact this right in case of emergency, the 2nd Amendment requires citizens to have the opportunity to be armed. There are rules in place and already instant background checks (and balances) in place. You can't simply walk into a store and buy a gun like you would a stick of gum or a bag of crisps.

So, out of the millions of citizens using their right we have a paltry 0.003% of cases where it is abused annually.
This is the (unfortunate) cost of freedom. But then, U.K. citizens would not understand that fact because they are not really free since they are under the auspices of a single monarch with Royal Prerogative this still intact.

reply to post by Krakatoa


are you truely free even with the 2nd ammendment? can you walk along the street root'in and a shoot'in and letting nukes off tfor the 4th of july?, are you not being watched by drones?, having all your electronic data slurped into big NSA data centers etc so worring about the theoretical powers of some old lady in another country who has to ask parliament for virtually everything she wants is hardly going to be top of your worry list when the gun grabbers come a knocking and asking for your guns

/ might as well troll a bit back /

Originally posted by Krakatoa
So, out of the millions of citizens using their right we have a paltry 0.003% of cases where it is abused annually.
This is the (unfortunate) cost of freedom. But then, U.K. citizens would not understand that fact because they are not really free since they are under the auspices of a single monarch with Royal Prerogative this still intact.

And out of the 1 person who has not used her right, it has never been abused. Our statistics in that regard seem a little more favourable than yours.
And while I'll point out this topic seems like nothing more than a way to 'get back' at all the UK citizens who don't believe in the 2nd amendment, I'll contribute.

I'm not for the monarchy. I'm also not against them. The Royal Family, no matter what any UK citizen may think or feel, is a part of our culture and our identity. We are a United Kingdom because they exist. As a subject of theirs, I have no fear whatsoever that the Royal Prerogative would ever be used, unless necessary. And, quite frankly, if it did become necessary I would gladly accept their rule.

On a more personal note, as I said I have no feelings either way towards the Royal Family, but last year's Diamond Jubilee made me feel very proud, and it brought our nation together in a way that nothing has for a very long time.

reply to post by JackofBlades


And tyhere you have it, you said " is a part of our culture and our identity". Well, the right to keep and bear arms " is a part of our culture and our identity". So, how is that different? I see no difference. If you are free to demand a change to our culture and identity, so should others demand a change to your culture and identity.

There is no difference.

This is the same debate going on regarding our 2nd Amendment rights in America.

personally i dont care what you guys do the other side of the pond, but sarcastically i'd rather every citizen over 16 have to carry 2 m60's along with 40,000 rounds of depleted uranium rounds at all time even in the shower/on the can/giving the mrs some loving etc :p

Originally posted by Krakatoa
And tyhere you have it, you said " is a part of our culture and our identity". Well, the right to keep and bear arms " is a part of our culture and our identity". So, how is that different? I see no difference. If you are free to demand a change to our culture and identity, so should others demand a change to your culture and identity.

There is no difference.

So I was correct in assuming that this thread was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at getting back at anti-gun Brits. Of course.

Still, I'll entertain the question.

The difference is predominantly this; the Queen represents hundreds and hundreds of years of Britain. The Royal Family has been one of the core aspects of British identity for over 1,000 years. It is also one of the first things people from other countries associate with the UK. In that regard it is, very literally, our identity.
To put it quite simply, if there was no monarch, we wouldn't be a United Kingdom.We'd be a conglomeration of countries who squabble and do all the other stuff territories do. But we don't. We are united under our ruler. Whether she takes an active role in governance is irrelevant. She is there, and so we are defined.

America's right to bear arms, in my humble opinion, is not a part of your culture or your identity, which I think is the main problem. You have confused the truly magnificent ideals your country was founded upon, with selfishness and arrogance.
America's identity should be what it was in the couple of centuries after it's birth; a place of liberty, freedom of thought, tolerance, and above all the belief that all humans are created equally and have a right to the aforementioned things. It's quite frankly ridiculous to me that you think your country is defined by weapons, and every persons right to carry weapons, because that, to me, say's a lot about your country.
Let's recall one of your previous posts in which you said only 0.003% of the armed population abuse their privilege. It's a very fair statement to be perfectly honest. But what you neglect to add is the possibility that one man, suitably armed, can remove a significantly higher proportion of the population. If the only person he could harm was himself, I'd say "Fair enough! If he's too stupid to manage it, he's too stupid to have it!" But the reality is one unhinged person can end many lives. The families of those killed are also affected, as are friends, relatives etc etc. So, that tiny, little, barely-even-noticed 0.003% is like a snowball rolling down a hill, gathering death and pain and destruction with it.

But hey, what does that matter? It's not your family that's been hurt. Long as you can have your guns, right?