Official Jubilee Thread.

[I am Rod Hull]

Having the head of state an unelected position is undemocratic, it removes the public's ability to pick it's "leaders". However, the point in case is that, regardless of whether they actually exercise it, the monarchy has access to a hell of a lot of power - head of the army, church and state, able to choose the PM, able to declare wars without it being passed by the House of Commons first.

Parliament draws it's powers from the crown through a constitution, but there's very little to stop a monarch tearing that up, removing all of parliaments power and installing themselves as a dictator.

I`m all for that.

[MooseBreath]

Having the head of state an unelected position is undemocratic, it removes the public's ability to pick it's "leaders". However, the point in case is that, regardless of whether they actually exercise it, the monarchy has access to a hell of a lot of power - head of the army, church and state, able to choose the PM, able to declare wars without it being passed by the House of Commons first.

Parliament draws it's powers from the crown through a constitution, but there's very little to stop a monarch tearing that up, removing all of parliaments power and installing themselves as a dictator.

Yeah, and if that happens (which it won't, ever) then, like any dictatorship, they'll be open to being overthrown. I don't know about you, but I'd fancy my chances in a one-on-one against Lizzy, so with the power of the army behind us I'm sure we could take the rest of them without much problem.

Like I said though, none of that will ever happen, and you're coming across as a stereotypical angry little scottish man (even though you aren't actually scottish, which makes it worse) who dislikes anything English, which is beyond sad.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Doesn't it fill you with euphoria to see all those Union Jacks clamped damply to their flagpoles?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Having the head of state an unelected position is undemocratic, it removes the public's ability to pick it's "leaders". However, the point in case is that, regardless of whether they actually exercise it, the monarchy has access to a hell of a lot of power - head of the army, church and state, able to choose the PM, able to declare wars without it being passed by the House of Commons first.

Parliament draws it's powers from the crown through a constitution, but there's very little to stop a monarch tearing that up, removing all of parliaments power and installing themselves as a dictator.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical jubilee ceremony!

[I am Rod Hull]

Al and Moose in happier times.

[media=]

[/media]

[The Doctor]

Yeah, and if that happens (which it won't, ever) then, like any dictatorship, they'll be open to being overthrown. I don't know about you, but I'd fancy my chances in a one-on-one against Lizzy, so with the power of the army behind us I'm sure we could take the rest of them without much problem.

Like I said though, none of that will ever happen, and you're coming across as a stereotypical angry little scottish man (even though you aren't actually scottish, which makes it worse) who dislikes anything English, which is beyond sad.

You mean the army that the monarch is commander in chief of - yeah, they'll definitely be on our side.

This has nothing to do with my national allegiances (particularly since I should point out, she's also queen of the Union and the Commonwealth - both of which Scotland are part of) - this is due to my belief that equality is the most important thing for us to strive for and that having an ultimate leader who is completely unaccountable is kind of a direct opposition to the concept of equality.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical jubilee ceremony!

Actually, all power is drawn from the crown, and new legislation is subject to royal assent. The monarch has access to supreme executive power - just, at least for the moment, they choose not to wield it. The Monarch still holds the power to withhold royal assent and decide exactly how the country is run by only allow laws to pass that they choose.

[ousefox]

Really authoratative, that.

You have to be a tremendously sad twat to have any real problem with the monarchy. I don't really care for it all and won't be celebrating the jubilee with any conviction, but I'd still much rather this part of our culture exist than for it to be replaced by more vacuous pop-mccrap

A sad twat to have a problem with an unelected, elitist establishment?

What has she done to deserve the right to have all the priveleges she gets?

[MooseBreath]

You mean the army that the monarch is commander in chief of - yeah, they'll definitely be on our side.

In a situation as absurdly ridiculous as the one which you are proposing may happen, the military can and will do whatever they want. Pretty sure they'll be on the side of sane people should the monarch ever completely lose its marbles.

[The Doctor]

In a situation as absurdly ridiculous as the one which you are proposing may happen, the military can and will do whatever they want. Pretty sure they'll be on the side of sane people should the monarch ever completely lose its marbles.

ah yes, like the Libyan army backed the citizens, like the Syrian army is doing?

I wouldn't trust the military as far as I could throw them, and while their boss is the Monarch, they're unlikely to side with the revolutionaries.

[Daggers]

...you're coming across as a stereotypical angry little scottish man (even though you aren't actually scottish, which makes it worse) who dislikes anything English, which is beyond sad.

Yeh, Big Al, pack it in - disliking everything English like the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and it's spivvy Greek consort.

[MooseBreath]

ah yes, like the Libyan army backed the citizens, like the Syrian army is doing?

I wouldn't trust the military as far as I could throw them, and while their boss is the Monarch, they're unlikely to side with the revolutionaries.

Look at the comparisons you are making. Get a grip.

[The Doctor]

Look at the comparisons you are making. Get a grip.

In the event that the Monarch abolishes parliament, what is fundamentally different between that scenario and the events in Libya and Syria?

[ScouseFox]

We're in fúcking England not Syria or Libya, mate. Seriously.

[Webbo]

In the event that the Monarch abolishes parliament, what is fundamentally different between that scenario and the events in Libya and Syria?

Really?

[HEGGSY]

In the event that the Monarch abolishes parliament, what is fundamentally different between that scenario and the events in Libya and Syria?

[Phube]

It's batter to have a (harmless) figure head. Than allow the population of this country to vote for one all powerful leader! Shudder that thought...

As we're being stoopid (see LargeAl):

What's to stop an elected head of state being elected 'democratically', then dissolving parliament á la Hitler!

[Daggers]

Is that the only option? Waste of space, expensive monarch or hopeless politician?

The servile attitude and the willingness of this country to be led amazes me. It's no wonder the Union is shit.

[Phube]

Is that the only option? Waste of space, expensive monarch or hopeless politician?

The servile attitude and the willingness of this country to be led amazes me. It's no wonder the Union is shit.

'Fraid so. Some body/thing/group has to run the country. Infrastructure, health, utilities don't run themselves.

[Daggers]

See?

I organised my own aquatic display - it was fvcking amazing, all the neighbours came around with flags and shit.

[The Doctor]

We're in fúcking England not Syria or Libya, mate. Seriously.

I'm quite aware of where the fúck we are.

Now then - should the Monarch decide to establish themselves as a dictator, what makes them, and hence the allegiances of the army, different to other dictators like Dave the Caveman David the Caveman Moosebreath suggested?

[Daggers]

'Fraid so. Some body/thing/group has to run the country. Infrastructure, health, utilities don't run themselves.

Bam.

There's your solution, right there.

[Webbo]

I'm quite aware of where the fúck we are.

Now then - should the Monarch decide to establish themselves as a dictator, what makes them, and hence the allegiances of the army, different to other dictators like Dave the Caveman David the Caveman Moosebreath suggested?

Stop being silly. You're talking nonsense and you know it.

Bam.

There's your solution, right there.

There's quite a few royals, does that count as a group?

[MooseBreath]

I'm quite aware of where the fúck we are.

Now then - should the Monarch decide to establish themselves as a dictator, what makes them, and hence the allegiances of the army, different to other dictators like Dave the Caveman David the Caveman Moosebreath suggested?

There has certainly been a notable absence of massacres in the UK recently

[FoxyPV]

I love FT.

We gone from not having a monarchy to immediately having a President which dissolves parliament and sets up a fascist state.

Ireland, and many other countries I assume, have a President, which is notional figurehead, and has all the powers of a wet sponge.

[Phube]

Bam.

There's your solution, right there.

Yup... groups have that amazing ability to get along for the cause...

Let's just assume that the only thing this 'group' had to do was to, say, support a 2nd tier football team. I could well imagine them all agreeing on the best cause of action to achieve their collective goal, could you!?