Queens Speech

colliemum

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

No, I don't think I will.

Nobody is making shabby comments about the sainted Queen, people are just telling the truth. That's allowed in a democracy, whether you like it or not. Also, if you took time to read the thread properly, including links, you'd see that 40% are in favour of a republic. Maybe not such a small minority as you think.

Can you give an example of her wonderfulness, please, colliemum?

colliemum

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

Er… no. This is an open forum, royalists and republicans can say what they like.

I have criticised the Queen’s current absences on this thread and am a staunch royalist. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

What are the sources of those quotations?

"Because of this consent rule senior royals are exempt from race discrimination laws, environmental protection laws, planning laws and much, much more."

"In a democracy we must all be equal in law. Clearly that's not the case in the UK."

"The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and the Queen's private estates, all benefit from these exemptions. That will have an impact on local communities up and down the country."

"Parliament needs to hold an open and rigorous inquiry into the use and abuse of the royal consent rule, and must publish all documents relating to its use over the past several decades and the impact that might have on communities up and down the country."

It is not misuse of power, please read up about the situations in which Royal Consent is sought. And for the umpteenth time we have a ‘proper’ constitution. I have no why you persist in this idea that we don’t.

Germanshepherdsmum

You are getting confused between the Royal Assent and the Royal Consent again Glorianny. The Royal Assent has not been withheld since Queen Anne’s day.

I fully acknowledge I sometimes post the wrong word GSM
However it is obvious and provable that the Queen who is supposedly nothing more than a figurehead has used her influence and interfered in the democratic process when she chose to.
The Royal Assent is of course the signing of Bills which is what most think HM is limited to
The Queen's consent is the misuse of power by the RF because of our lack of a proper constitution.

DaisyAnne

^Really it isn't enough just to say something you know. It requires a level of proof and there is nothing you can post that demonstrates this.^

But that is a rule you chose not to stick to Glorianny, for the majority of a very long discussion. Why should I listen to you now.

I'm not asking you to listen to me just to answer a question abut something you said. But the fact that you ignore it says enough.

It is a misapprehension to believe that the Queen wields no real power.
In 1963, she chose Sir Alec Douglas Home to be Prime Minister without a leadership election.

Really it isn't enough just to say something you know. It requires a level of proof and there is nothing you can post that demonstrates this.

But that is a rule you chose not to stick to Glorianny, for the majority of a very long discussion. Why should I listen to you now.

The reasons RF are allowed to get away with what they do being unaccountable in public office is because they give the PM government all the power so that keeps them where they are hereditary can't vote them out until we have a Republic

DaisyAnne

Except, as we found the other day Grany, we know Glorianny wants a far-right Trumpian state, e.g., a dictatorship. And, shall we say, is prepared to be economical with the truth to push any discussion in that direction.

As Glorianny has previously denied we have a constitution, I have no idea why she chooses to post about changing our Constitutional Head.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Did we? You mean you assumed that I wanted such a thing. Really it isn't enough just to say something you know. It requires a level of proof and there is nothing you can post that demonstrates this.
As for denying a constitution. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that a proper constitution is something which should be easily understood and accessible to all and not reliant on ancient statutes which only those who study constitutional law can understand and which they still get wrong

You said
The Queen does not influence the government although she acts as a sounding board.
Would you like to revise this in the light of the Queen's consent? Which is very different to the Royal assent which is what most people think royal power is limited to
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent

You are getting confused between the Royal Assent and the Royal Consent again Glorianny. The Royal Assent has not been withheld since Queen Anne’s day.

The queen has queen's consent and Charles to vet laws that effect them personally. She has a lawyer to act on her behalf. She is exempted from anti discrimination laws in work place. She had a transparency law changed to hide her embarrassing wealth from the public.

"In July this year it was reported that the Queen has lobbied the Scottish government for an exemption from environmental protection laws."

Senior royals routinely make use of helicopters instead of cars and fly longer distances by private jet. And they all maintain multiple large houses that will have an enormous carbon foot-print.

RF is unacceptable secretive exempted from Freedom of Information laws that all public bodies must comply with.

volver

Lots of things make me wonder.

Lots of things. ?

They do me too Volver.

I am not anti looking at the structure of our democracy. I'm not keen on Presidents or anyone who has political power but I want to know what we would get out of a change. That's all I'm asking. Everything I have seen offered is either personal dislike or simply nothing to do with the job that would have to be done. It really can't be, yet again, I don't like this so anything else would be better. That simply cannot be true. "Anything else" could be a lot worse.

If we decided to have a Parliament for England and an upper house for the UK, it might be a good time to look at the whole structure. Just slagging people or traditions off because someone "doesn't like them" is pointless. I would like to be told what we would gain.

Lots of things make me wonder.

Lots of things. ?

Except, as we found the other day Grany, we know Glorianny wants a far-right Trumpian state, e.g., a dictatorship. And, shall we say, is prepared to be economical with the truth to push any discussion in that direction.

As Glorianny has previously denied we have a constitution, I have no idea why she chooses to post about changing our Constitutional Head.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

DaisyAnne

volver

Yes, to the Germany/castle thing.

But they are a modern, fully fledged democracy that doesn't allow their aristocrats to have positions of influence on the government just because of who their ancestors were.

You really are grabbing at straws now volver.

The Queen does not influence the government although she acts as a sounding board.

Newspaper magnates are the first that come to mind where influence is concerned. Does that mean we are undemocratic? From time to time, for a short period, I expect it does. That does not mean we scrap all newspapers though.

Many wealthy people influence the government but that is because of a corrupt government not a corrupt head of state. The HoS is not involved. The government want money for their party coffers.

Governments should, of course, listen to those with great knowledge on a topic, such as climate change, ecology, etc. and they do, from all sources.

Look at what happened in the 1970s and how the RF protected its wealth from tax.
The Queen's Assent was considered archaic and unused but that isn't true. She has used it to influence government.

Glorianny

I always wonder why people dismiss reform as something which would be difficult. Of course it will be difficult. Democracy is difficult.
As for a President or Hof S being in the same position as the RF what absolute nonsense. They would be there for a fixed period and would have to be elected. Should they mismanage, abuse or be unfit to perform their duties they would automatically have a replacement and if this was a long term problem they would have to retire.
They could have one official residence for entertaining and the rest could be opened to the public.
There would not be the need for the relatives, hangers on and cronies currently supported in various ways by the RF.
A streamlined, elected H of S, a role any citizen could aspire to.
Ending centuries of belief in a quasi-religious, hereditary role which has no place in a secular democracy.

Well Said

Let Republic Explain If interested.

www.republic.org.uk/our_head_of_state

www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state

www.republic.org.uk/what_will_change

www.republic.org.uk/making_the_change

I always wonder why people dismiss reform as something which would be difficult. Of course it will be difficult. Democracy is difficult.
As for a President or Hof S being in the same position as the RF what absolute nonsense. They would be there for a fixed period and would have to be elected. Should they mismanage, abuse or be unfit to perform their duties they would automatically have a replacement and if this was a long term problem they would have to retire.
They could have one official residence for entertaining and the rest could be opened to the public.
There would not be the need for the relatives, hangers on and cronies currently supported in various ways by the RF.
A streamlined, elected H of S, a role any citizen could aspire to.
Ending centuries of belief in a quasi-religious, hereditary role which has no place in a secular democracy.

volver

Yes, to the Germany/castle thing.

But they are a modern, fully fledged democracy that doesn't allow their aristocrats to have positions of influence on the government just because of who their ancestors were.

You really are grabbing at straws now volver.

The Queen does not influence the government although she acts as a sounding board.

Newspaper magnates are the first that come to mind where influence is concerned. Does that mean we are undemocratic? From time to time, for a short period, I expect it does. That does not mean we scrap all newspapers though.

Many wealthy people influence the government but that is because of a corrupt government not a corrupt head of state. The HoS is not involved. The government want money for their party coffers.

Governments should, of course, listen to those with great knowledge on a topic, such as climate change, ecology, etc. and they do, from all sources.

I have explained it but you have decided to ignore what I said. I also didn't say "Come off it"

I haven't resorted to any usual descriptions of royalty although you appear to have an obsession with what Royals wear.

I said I thought there should be a referendum with a supermajority but you're ignoring that too and trying to make out I want to impose my view on everyone.

An elected HoS wouldn't have unlimited power and hero-worship from their grateful subjects, so they couldn't just do what they like.

Your posts are full of straw men and assumptions and you are only hearing what you want to hear and filling in the rest with what you think is true, so I won't be answering any more.