| Sir Kier Starmer on 19:46 - Dec 13 with 973 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 19:13 - Dec 13 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It’s a constitutional necessity (currently) that limits the power of any one individual and government as a whole. Without it we would inevitably have a political head of state/sovereign who could change any law with a stroke of his or her or their pen.
Not saying we couldn’t do it but it is a system that has largely worked since the late 17th century. |
Not being funny, but can you give us an example of where the Monarch has limited the power of anyone ? Thanks. [Post edited 13 Dec 2023 19:47]
|  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
|  |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 20:10 - Dec 13 with 950 views | onehunglow |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 19:13 - Dec 13 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It’s a constitutional necessity (currently) that limits the power of any one individual and government as a whole. Without it we would inevitably have a political head of state/sovereign who could change any law with a stroke of his or her or their pen.
Not saying we couldn’t do it but it is a system that has largely worked since the late 17th century. |
I disagree simply on principle .
Constitutions can be changed .
Ours should
It exacerbates divisions |  |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 20:39 - Dec 13 with 928 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 19:46 - Dec 13 by Kilkennyjack |
Not being funny, but can you give us an example of where the Monarch has limited the power of anyone ? Thanks. [Post edited 13 Dec 2023 19:47]
|
I could give you hundreds of examples spanning nearly a thousand years. But as we are talking about 2023 the constitutional monarchy we have means the monarch holds all the power to enact or repeal laws but never uses it without the consent of parliament and delegating the offices of state to officials voted for by the electorate.
Despite the government having one of the biggest majorities in history we have seen in recent weeks, months and years how difficult it is to get certain laws over the line. Prime ministers are severely hampered in doing what they want to do. They have to bring their party in line, sometimes they need to woo members of the opposition. In short they need an element of consensus.
A political head of state could just bypass all that with executive orders. That is an example of how a constitutional monarch limits the power of government. By doing nothing. This is why it’s so dangerous for king sausage fingers to make statements that could be perceived as political regarding the climate and environment and other sensitive issues. The late Queen Liz performed her role impeccably. |  |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 21:09 - Dec 13 with 914 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 20:10 - Dec 13 by onehunglow |
I disagree simply on principle .
Constitutions can be changed .
Ours should
It exacerbates divisions |
And you are free to do so. I respect your viewpoint.
History teaches us time and time again that with these great revolutionary acts that you often end up with a similar or in some cases a worse situation. Take Cromwell and Napoleon. Both borne out of an attempt to limit the perceived tyranny and excesses of the king and bring power to the people only a few years later for them to both be lording it over everyone committing atrocities with their massive armies whilst living in massive palaces gorging themselves on the fineries of life at the taxpayers expense with their sons as heirs. You are no doubt aware of the iconic ending to Animal Farm (the book not the dodgy film) where the animals are looking through the window and they can’t tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.
The choice for me is stark. We either have a benign and politically impotent monarch with sausage fingers who can’t do anything sitting on a throne in buck house or a ruthless see you next Tuesday like Blair sitting on the same throne signing executive orders on a whim. | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 21:45 - Dec 13 with 892 views | Gwyn737 |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 21:09 - Dec 13 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
And you are free to do so. I respect your viewpoint.
History teaches us time and time again that with these great revolutionary acts that you often end up with a similar or in some cases a worse situation. Take Cromwell and Napoleon. Both borne out of an attempt to limit the perceived tyranny and excesses of the king and bring power to the people only a few years later for them to both be lording it over everyone committing atrocities with their massive armies whilst living in massive palaces gorging themselves on the fineries of life at the taxpayers expense with their sons as heirs. You are no doubt aware of the iconic ending to Animal Farm (the book not the dodgy film) where the animals are looking through the window and they can’t tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.
The choice for me is stark. We either have a benign and politically impotent monarch with sausage fingers who can’t do anything sitting on a throne in buck house or a ruthless see you next Tuesday like Blair sitting on the same throne signing executive orders on a whim. |
We also have this strange paradox where in the main, countries with a constitutional monarchy are the most open societies of all.
Don’t know why, just seems to be.
Another positive for us is having a king or queen as head of the church manages to keep religion out of politics quite effectively. | | | |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:12 - Dec 13 with 863 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 21:45 - Dec 13 by Gwyn737 |
We also have this strange paradox where in the main, countries with a constitutional monarchy are the most open societies of all.
Don’t know why, just seems to be.
Another positive for us is having a king or queen as head of the church manages to keep religion out of politics quite effectively. |
Saudi Arabia ?
Not quite as open as the USA, Ireland or France perhaps …?
Well the last para proves the exact opposite of what you say it does.
King Charlo as head of church and a constitutional-monarch at the same time obviously brings religion into politics. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:18 - Dec 13 with 845 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 20:39 - Dec 13 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
I could give you hundreds of examples spanning nearly a thousand years. But as we are talking about 2023 the constitutional monarchy we have means the monarch holds all the power to enact or repeal laws but never uses it without the consent of parliament and delegating the offices of state to officials voted for by the electorate.
Despite the government having one of the biggest majorities in history we have seen in recent weeks, months and years how difficult it is to get certain laws over the line. Prime ministers are severely hampered in doing what they want to do. They have to bring their party in line, sometimes they need to woo members of the opposition. In short they need an element of consensus.
A political head of state could just bypass all that with executive orders. That is an example of how a constitutional monarch limits the power of government. By doing nothing. This is why it’s so dangerous for king sausage fingers to make statements that could be perceived as political regarding the climate and environment and other sensitive issues. The late Queen Liz performed her role impeccably. |
None of what you describe involves Prince Charles doing anything useful at all.
It would be exactly the same if we got rid of his role tomorrow.
Much better to have an elected President like the poet in Ireland.
Believing in the UK Royal Family is for the BBC brainwashed pensioners. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 01:01 - Dec 14 with 812 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:12 - Dec 13 by Kilkennyjack |
Saudi Arabia ?
Not quite as open as the USA, Ireland or France perhaps …?
Well the last para proves the exact opposite of what you say it does.
King Charlo as head of church and a constitutional-monarch at the same time obviously brings religion into politics. |
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy not a constitutional monarchy… | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sir Kier Starmer on 01:25 - Dec 14 with 808 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:18 - Dec 13 by Kilkennyjack |
None of what you describe involves Prince Charles doing anything useful at all.
It would be exactly the same if we got rid of his role tomorrow.
Much better to have an elected President like the poet in Ireland.
Believing in the UK Royal Family is for the BBC brainwashed pensioners. |
You clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. Or you’re just not reading it properly. I’m no monarchist at all. It is an anachronism. But I’m speaking about pure practicalities. I ferociously believe that those in power should be limited in what they can actually do. king sausage fingers technically holds all the power but is not allowed/able to actually use any of it. A dodgy government with a massive majority still clearly struggle to force through any old crap they want to.
This is fundamentally a good thing.
If I were ever to have the pleasure of having a pint with you you would probably discover that we aren’t that different you and I. But the thought of someone like Blair or Boris as president absolutely terrifies me. | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 06:32 - Dec 14 with 784 views | Gwyn737 |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 01:01 - Dec 14 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy not a constitutional monarchy… |
Ta. Saves me answering. | | | |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 06:39 - Dec 14 with 781 views | Gwyn737 |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:12 - Dec 13 by Kilkennyjack |
Saudi Arabia ?
Not quite as open as the USA, Ireland or France perhaps …?
Well the last para proves the exact opposite of what you say it does.
King Charlo as head of church and a constitutional-monarch at the same time obviously brings religion into politics. |
The Uk, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium to name a few all have constitutional monarchies and all very secular and open.
Compare those to the US which has president and a constitution that deliberately doesn’t mention religion yet the can't keep God out of the senate.
I’m not a lover of the royals - quite ambivalent but they do serve a purpose, whether intentionally or not. [Post edited 14 Dec 2023 13:11]
| | | |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 08:19 - Dec 14 with 760 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 22:18 - Dec 13 by Kilkennyjack |
None of what you describe involves Prince Charles doing anything useful at all.
It would be exactly the same if we got rid of his role tomorrow.
Much better to have an elected President like the poet in Ireland.
Believing in the UK Royal Family is for the BBC brainwashed pensioners. |
The President of Ireland is merely ceremonial a bit like Charles really.
Don't think anyone would want to have an all powerful president like France or USA who can veto their Parliaments.
Mind you Drakeford thought he was President of Wales rather than a servant of the voters. | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 09:06 - Dec 14 with 726 views | majorraglan |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 08:19 - Dec 14 by felixstowe_jack |
The President of Ireland is merely ceremonial a bit like Charles really.
Don't think anyone would want to have an all powerful president like France or USA who can veto their Parliaments.
Mind you Drakeford thought he was President of Wales rather than a servant of the voters. |
At least Drakeford never prorogued the Senedd unlike Boris who unlawfully prorogued a democratic Parliament.
We are very fortunate that we live in a democracy, we need to have strong checks and balances with total accountability and transparency. I’d probably look to bin the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber, but I’d look to stay away from a presidential system | | | |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 10:22 - Dec 14 with 705 views | controversial_jack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 09:06 - Dec 14 by majorraglan |
At least Drakeford never prorogued the Senedd unlike Boris who unlawfully prorogued a democratic Parliament.
We are very fortunate that we live in a democracy, we need to have strong checks and balances with total accountability and transparency. I’d probably look to bin the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber, but I’d look to stay away from a presidential system |
I don't believe Drakeford ever lied to the queen either | | | |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 12:17 - Dec 14 with 692 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 10:22 - Dec 14 by controversial_jack |
I don't believe Drakeford ever lied to the queen either |
Doubt the Queen ever spoke to Drakeford in any official capacity. | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 12:44 - Dec 14 with 679 views | onehunglow |
We see endless posts on the fiscal and social divisions in this country
Like it or not , our monarchy defines these
It always has
The pure flaunting of grotesque wealth over centuries damns them
They continue to live lives so utterly detached from their subjects
Not all republics are bad
Not all monarchies too
It's simply ours is so overwhelmingly frozen in time | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 11:23 - Dec 15 with 613 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 12:17 - Dec 14 by felixstowe_jack |
Doubt the Queen ever spoke to Drakeford in any official capacity. |
They were in the same room once but she thought he was Harold bishop from neighbours. | |
| |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 14:27 - Dec 15 with 590 views | onehunglow |
| Sir Kier Starmer on 19:13 - Dec 13 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It’s a constitutional necessity (currently) that limits the power of any one individual and government as a whole. Without it we would inevitably have a political head of state/sovereign who could change any law with a stroke of his or her or their pen.
Not saying we couldn’t do it but it is a system that has largely worked since the late 17th century. |
Good riposte
Yes,we could do it but the current monar hy wouldn’t like change.
I mean,what would Andrew do now?
Would he have to work.
Would he be homeless ?
It is a closed shop ,at public expense rather than a constitutional necessity .
We have been conned for centuries | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
