Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
HM could point out to the government that Britain's membership of the EU is ILLEGAL under Magna Carta, and so are the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Lisbon. Therefore, She is under no obligation to sign the Lisbon Treaty Bill.

Then it would appear that you do not understand the implications of a 'constitutional monarchy'.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Then it would appear that you do not understand the implications of a 'constitutional monarchy'.

Lifted from Wikipedia:

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centres around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
The BNP needed 9/11 to act as a trigger by blaming it on Muslims when it was an inside job.

If 9/11 never happened and the bitter feeling towards Muslims never emerged then the EDs would probably be a bigger party and get better election results.

Muslims have been made scapegoats by the government media and nationalist groups.

Why may you ask it is simple Muslims are a strong community that can not be controlled by manipulation or propaganda.

Muslims don’t believe in washing down there beliefs and allowing others to control them and many demand that they should have separate laws and protection. With objection to women being seen as equal and wanting continued forced marriages they are attacked by liberals. Nationalists are upset as they demand that others change there ways to suit them and would like everyone to change to their faith. When attacks are made it is normally due liberals asking or forcing Muslim states and communities to conform to liberalism with the anger directed at those who welcomed them into there society. Communities are enemies of liberals and when the community attacks existing communities they are enemies of nationalists.

If the religion was not highlighted it would be a case of one country attacking another or just simple civil war. It is in the best interest of government liberals and nationalists to highlight there community background and yet some communists may argue it is a case of the lower classes attacking the rich and powerful as all humans are equal and communities don’t exist. Attacks by groups who were born and grow up in Britain on the British people clearly indicate they don’t see themselves as British.

The BNP can gain support by doing nothing but sticking to its beliefs as it has no intention in appealing to liberals and would rather people believed that strong nations were more important. We don’t need to highlight Muslim attacks, fracture, division and the downfalls of extreme capitalism as people can see for themselves.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
How do you see this as being achieved? Broon WILL pay, but why HM?

This debate about which individuals are going to "pay" or not is irrelevant.

The requirement for our Liberation is that the entire political class are going to have to be dispossessed of their power and influence.

When will enough people realise that is the *price* for our Freedom?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
Lifted from Wikipedia:

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centres around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

It would appear you have answered your own question then.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Populist Lee:
This debate about which individuals are going to "pay" or not is irrelevant.

The requirement for our Liberation is that the entire political class are going to have to be dispossessed of their power and influence.

When will enough people realise that is the *price* for our Freedom?

What then, would replace it? There has to be a system that is answerable to the electorate. Anything else becomes anarchy or (may God forbid) Fascism/Communism. It is because this present Government has been so underhand in their dealing with our rights, by handing them over to a foreign power, that we have come to this mess. Everyone knows that the next General Election will see NuLabour swept from power.

In order for the Country to be run properly, there must be a mandate to the Politicians to act on our behalf. What has become clear now that, during his term in office as PM, Blair was selling us down the river. Brown, IMO, has been left with a can of worms that has been booby-trapped so that if he tries to change the plan, things will get worse for him thereby detracting him from fixing the situation.

The lot that are presently in Parliament (of all Parties) have shown their contempt for the electorate by making sure their own nests are feathered before the end of their time as MP's. If they had the power to do so, they would, I am certain, vote themselves for another term as MP's without going to the electorate.

The last time that happened, we had a Republic led by a dictator, irrespective of how well-meaning he tried to be.
[Rep]

>> What then, would replace it? <<

You, me, us . . .
One political class is replaced by another; but the next one is accountable to the Electorate in all things . .
[Rep]

If it was up to me it would be an aristocratic rule or even an absolute monarchy. We would of course need new Monarchs - there are relatives in Europe. Poor smidgey thinks that's Nazism! Brainwashed nowadays aren't they?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
What then, would replace it? There has to be a system that is answerable to the electorate. Anything else becomes anarchy or (may God forbid) Fascism/Communism. It is because this present Government has been so underhand in their dealing with our rights, by handing them over to a foreign power, that we have come to this mess. Everyone knows that the next General Election will see NuLabour swept from power.

In order for the Country to be run properly, there must be a mandate to the Politicians to act on our behalf. What has become clear now that, during his term in office as PM, Blair was selling us down the river. Brown, IMO, has been left with a can of worms that has been booby-trapped so that if he tries to change the plan, things will get worse for him thereby detracting him from fixing the situation.

The lot that are presently in Parliament (of all Parties) have shown their contempt for the electorate by making sure their own nests are feathered before the end of their time as MP's. If they had the power to do so, they would, I am certain, vote themselves for another term as MP's without going to the electorate.

The last time that happened, we had a Republic led by a dictator, irrespective of how well-meaning he tried to be.

I'm afraid "time to bite the bullet" will soon be upon us.

The "all we have to do is win a General Election and Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act" option just isn't on.

If they're lucky, there could be a bloodless counter-Revolution.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Populist Lee:
I'm afraid "time to bite the bullet" will soon be upon us.

The "all we have to do is win a General Election and Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act" option just isn't on.

If they're lucky, there could be a bloodless counter-Revolution.

Good in theory. However, Mugabe is a prime example of what can happen if the wrong people win a 'revolution'.
[Rep]