The Monarchy & UKIP

Originally Posted by noachian:
Smidgey; I 'love' the Queen so much because she reprisents the crown; whch ultimately reprisents the laws which have evolved from it. Freedom etc....

If you think this country has every experienced real freedom them you are sadly deluded.

Originally Posted by :
And if somebody ignorantly dissagrees with me I have the RIGHT to educate them, with all do respect Smidgey you can't tell me that should not defend the Queen. And the Queen does reprisent the country's values and laws; whether you follow or agree with them is entirely up to you.

You do not have the right to educate them at all. You have a right to say whatever you wish, but you do not have the right to educate them - they can ignore what you say or they can disagree with it (as I am doing).

Further, forgive me, but I never once said you could not defend the Queen.

Finally, I doubt there has been a single time in my entire life where I have followed British law (at least in the criminal sense). I don't break the law, not because it is the law, but because it is right.

Originally Posted by :
If I choose to follow the Sovreign of teh Crown; then that is MY CHOICE. I will defend the Crown because it reprisents the laws of the United Kingdom.

I never said it wasn't your choice, but you must also realise that it is my choice to reject it (as I am sure you would), because I believe in liberty before being a subject to a centralised individual who should have no authority or standing over me. You, however, do not believe in liberty - but that is your choice.

Further, you have just proven in this statement that your claim that the monarchy is 'vital' to Britain is absolute nonsense. There are plenty of other countries that have law represented in something else (maybe something that it makes sense to represent law in - such as a written constitution). Your claim that you will defend the crown because it represents the laws of the UK refutes your own claim that the crown is vital to Britain.

Tell me, was France no longer France after the revolution?

Originally Posted by :
I was bould with Mikeuk because I am sick of the ignorance and hostility towards a woman who does is so devoted to her job, and please don't counter argue that Hitler was good at his job because there is a difference and you know it.

I don't actually, please enlighten me.

Where does it state that being good at ones job deserves respect?

Originally Posted by :
She, along with most other people; deserves the respect and gratetude of her subjects. It is pure iron-arrogance if one chooses to be disrespectful to her. Although any socially minded being would know that.

Any socially minded being would be more concerned with his fellow citizen and fellow man than some abstract 'crown'.

I can be disrespectful of whomever I please (that, is my right), however, concerning the Queen - I'm sure she is a fine person of great moral standing - it is her office I am disputing. Concerning Prince Charles - I have a different opinion. I will not be looking forward to when this man - a man who gives pro-EU speeches in the EU parliament - becomes the monarch.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by douglas denny:
Because in a representative democracy with the Monarch as head of state, the Monarch is part of the tripartite pillars of the constitution:- Monarch; Parliament: independent Judiciary.

The Morarch is the head of the armed forces too, which means no politician can become the head of the ultimate force in the country; the allegiance of the armed forces is to the monarch only - not some Johnny-come-lately like Tony Bliar who could do untold damage (as indeed he did anyway).

It does not matter too much who the actual person is as Monarch - it is the institution and its constitutional aspects which are most important to the stability of our political system and culture.

DED.

Thanks for the reply.

Now perhaps you would like to explain why it is vital, since this most certainly did not.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
If you think this country has every experienced real freedom them you are sadly deluded.

Then go and live your life somewhere else and coplain the way they do things.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
You do not have the right to educate them at all. You have a right to say whatever you wish, but you do not have the right to educate them - they can ignore what you say or they can disagree with it (as I am doing).

I don't have the right to educate somebody? Whether it is about my views or about something that is absolutely true?

X: "The Monarch has to much power!"

Y: "No, actually the Monarch has little power..."

X: "You don't have the right ot tell me what to think!"

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Finally, I doubt there has been a single time in my entire life where I have followed British law (at least in the criminal sense). I don't break the law, not because it is the law, but because it is right.

That I will have to take your word for; and I don't, sorry.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I never said it wasn't your choice, but you must also realise that it is my choice to reject it (as I am sure you would), because I believe in liberty before being a subject to a centralised individual who should have no authority or standing over me. You, however, do not believe in liberty - but that is your choice.

Oh, so I don't believe in Liberty? Ok, so because I believe in defending the Crown, that makes me some how anti-Liberty? Well I think you might want to check my Signreture, the Marcus Aurelius quote. Thats what I believe brother.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Further, you have just proven in this statement that your claim that the monarchy is 'vital' to Britain is absolute nonsense. There are plenty of other countries that have law represented in something else (maybe something that it makes sense to represent law in - such as a written constitution). Your claim that you will defend the crown because it represents the laws of the UK refutes your own claim that the crown is vital to Britain.

Tell me, was France no longer France after the revolution?

I am not talking about France, or indeed not talking about Monarchy in general, I am talking about hte British Crown.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I don't actually, please enlighten me.

Where does it state that being good at ones job deserves respect?

Well I always thought that you were a person who knew the difference between right and wrong. The Queen performs her duties for good, Hitler for bad (respectively). Strange; I would have thought you of all people would have thought of that. And besides; are you sure I have the right to enlighten you?

First of all I don't know what 'It' is, so I don't know where 'It' states we are to do anything. But I know it is human compassion to reward somebody with respect if they know the virtue of devotion.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Any socially minded being would be more concerned with his fellow citizen and fellow man than some abstract 'crown'.

Well techincally thats what I was saying. And secondly not necesarily, as you seem to be quite vigilant on your points of what people don't have to be.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I can be disrespectful of whomever I please (that, is my right), however, concerning the Queen - I'm sure she is a fine person of great moral standing - it is her office I am disputing. Concerning Prince Charles - I have a different opinion. I will not be looking forward to when this man - a man who gives pro-EU speeches in the EU parliament - becomes the monarch.

Thats right, you can be disrespectful to whom ever you like; but when two people with sticks tell you to do something, your rights go out the window. So you should thank the Lord (expression not statement) that you live in a society where the two men with sticks actually alow you to do atleast somethings. To be disrespectful to someone, expecially someone whom you yourself have said is probably 'a fine person', is fine if you are the person who justifies your own actions.

Smidgey, I respect your philosophey, but as a fellow human being I would like to tell you that there is other people in the world, other people that you can hurt or make happy or make laugh or kill etc etc and their judgments on you are what makes society an actual society. I have the right to educate you Smidgey, just as you have the right to disrespect me or any other person who seems to contradict you. "Don't become what you wish to destroy."

Now I choose to end this arguement and go about my ignorant, self-justified business; as I have learned from the best!

[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
Smidgey; I 'love' the Queen so much because she reprisents the crown; whch ultimately reprisents the laws which have evolved from it. Freedom etc....

And if somebody ignorantly dissagrees with me I have the RIGHT to educate them, with all do respect Smidgey you can't tell me that should not defend the Queen. And the Queen does reprisent the country's values and laws; whether you follow or agree with them is entirely up to you.

If I choose to follow the Sovreign of teh Crown; then that is MY CHOICE. I will defend the Crown because it reprisents the laws of the United Kingdom.

I was bould with Mikeuk because I am sick of the ignorance and hostility towards a woman who does is so devoted to her job, and please don't counter argue that Hitler was good at his job because there is a difference and you know it. She, along with most other people; deserves the respect and gratetude of her subjects. It is pure iron-arrogance if one chooses to be disrespectful to her. Although any socially minded being would know that.

If I believe somebody is wrong; I argue against them; just as you are doing with me now!

Noachian

Do you consider that the coronation oath that the Queen took is valid today? I consider she has broken her trust with the British people or she has abdicated. She apparently signed the instruments of ratification for the Lisbon Treaty which would be a treasonous act.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Bob FM:
rjt, that would tend then to indicate that all those old stager UKIPer's who keep telling us new members we are wrong, ill informed, ignorant amongst other things, haven't got the message over very well. Lets hope us new people can.

I think he problem is a lot broader than that although there are things UKIP could have done better.

[Rep]

gimlet,

What do you define as a treasonous act? Where in law is it treasonous to sign a treaty negotiated by your own government with your allies in accordance with their declared intention at the last GE? None of the EU member states is an 'enemy'. I don't want the treaty to be ratified, but we have to act, if it is, as it were lawful. There have been one or 2 noble attempts in the courts to slow the process, although only Wheeler caught the mood of the moment and paid full whack for top lawyers. Unsurprisingly, and fortuitously should UKIP ever get elected, it is not possible to enforce a manifesto commitment at law.

Treason has, in modern times, a specific definition in law yet to be 'declared' as there have been no recent cases. We can all play with words, as there are people who call every unlawful killing murder when the law will say manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, but it will get us nowhere. Treason is against the monarch and family, not the people. Even where the monarch is the kingdom in terms of the actions countenanced against her she herself cannot commit treason.

The Coronation Oath is defined by an archaic law (Coronation Oath Act 1688 (c.6) - Statute Law Database )that has itself been slightly amended:

Originally Posted by :
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?

The key words are the 'Statutes in Parlyament agreed on'. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was agreed on by Parliament. It went through all 3 readings and was debated and voted on in both houses. We lost. To pretend, and that is all this denial is, that the monarch commits treason or breaks her oath by signing a statute that has been debated and passed is a clear misunderstanding of simple English. The monarch could hardly reject a law passed by both houses of Parliament in accordance with the Government's manifesto-ish. If the monarch refused to sign the statute she would, IMHO, be in breach of her coronation oath (remember Victoria refused to sign an act relating to the Welsh church, which was in conflict with her oath in her opinion).

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
quote Smidgey

Ref: my comments on Monarchy (DED)

Thanks for the reply.

Now perhaps you would like to explain why it is vital, since this most certainly did not.

Sorry if you have to have it spelled-out. I thought it was obvious.

Removing the role of the Monarch will mean the wholsale scrapping of the constitution as it has evolved (and remained stable) in the present form for centuries. It would mean the replacement of the present constitution which has served this country well for all those centuries with another. Whether that replacement would be "better" or not is open to debate and is non-sequitur anyway, as there are so many alternatives possible - non of which has been proven to be better than our monarchic, parliamentary representative democracy.

One alternative which I am certain some in this country are working towards would be to accept the full constitutional arrangements of the European Union. I think this is totally unacceptable as the EU system is anti-democratic: a soviet style tyranny in fact, which would lead to civil unrest and eventual bloodshed.

Comprende now?

DED.
-

[Rep]

Originally Posted by douglas denny:
One alternative which I am certain some in this country are working towards would be to accept the full constitutional arrangements of the European Union. I think this is totally unacceptable as the EU system is anti-democratic: a soviet style tyranny in fact, which would lead to civil unrest and eventual bloodshed.

Comprende now?

DED.
-

I agree;

"The supression of rights leads to violant uprising!" - Sen. Bobby Kennedy

[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
We need a new constitution without any hereditary OR religious influence indeed the original American Constitution would make a valid starting point

We in England have a very good constitution the prblem is that the house of commons seem to feel that they are the pre-eminant part of parliament when in fact there is in law no pre-eminant part.

Parliament comprises the house of commons the house of Lords and the soveriegn, unfortunately in 1911 the commons threatened the lords with 300 new peers who would vote for the abolision of the Lords if the Lords did not approve a bill the commons wanted to pass, the Lords instead of asking the King to refuse the parent to the newly proposed Lords they rolled over and started the rote in our constituional system of government.

King George the 5th was told by a government minister that the King had a considerable number of prerogatives which he could use but he could only use them if he was backed by a government minister, instead of consigning the minister to the Tower he accepted wrongly that his prerogatives needed the support of a minister.

His sons and granddaughter will doubtless have been told the same lie.

The 1911 parliament act is strictly illegal as the Lords were under duress by threat of their extinction by the commons and every thing which follows on from it is illegal.

The restrictions on the soveriegns prerogatives is illegal because they amount to a major change to the constitution which requires the approval of the vast majority of the adults indigenous to this England.

Why do I say England and not Britain it is because Wales is subvject to English law and the English constitution,Scotland was allowed by English Kings to keep their own laws and constitution.

Her Majesty's powers and the powersa of the Lords have in effect been usurped by the commons entirely contrary to the ancient laws of England and the wishes of thew people.

We have in England a history of removing Kings who we feel are not up to the job and appointing those we feel are capable of handling the job. Let us think on that way forward.

[Rep]