Brits....

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:16 pm

abbey;537634 wrote: Sorry, just seen spots post.

It was worth the wait.

ha ha just for once it was not me:wah:

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:16 pm

Thank you Spot, very educational. I'm sorry that you don't want to visit here though.

But Understand, and appreciate the time it took for you to post that. Did you do that in all one breath???

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:17 pm

jimbo;537645 wrote: ha ha just for once it was not me:wah:

this ONE Time...:wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:18 pm

fantastic post as usual spot , i will get sue to explain it to me later:-6 :-6

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:18 pm

Spot, what a wise man you are! You taught me a thing or two in that post, mind you whether I will remember it or not , might be another matter

Red · Post by **Red** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:19 pm

jimbo;537650 wrote: fantastic post as usual spot , i will get sue to explain it to me later:-6 :-6

:wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:20 pm

I guess I will cancel Spots tickets for the donkey ride down the grand canyon.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:21 pm

YZGI;537655 wrote: I guess I will cancel Spots tickets for the donkey ride down the grand canyon.

:wah: You are back at that occupation again??

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:22 pm

Sweet Tooth;537632 wrote: KOAN- THIS IS WHY WE WHERE CALLING SPOT OUT- HES STRAIGHT UP AND GIVES GOOD, LOGICAL, AND HONEST ANSWERS. SETTLE DOWN

and Spot, thank you so much for understanding! i think I was most afraid of your answer, and after I read it, I clearly understand. Thanks! I think this thread is done! All my questions have finally been answered! Thanks spot!

I said that every country has foreign policy and that is why we take interest. I said it in one sentence. spot took it about another 100 steps further. Both are straight up answers, honest and logical. The only left out bit is "good" which is entirely subjective.

fyi, both answers were the same.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:22 pm

WonderWendy3;537659 wrote: :wah: You are back at that occupation again??
Yeah but I'm the guide not the donkey.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:23 pm

koan;537661 wrote: I said that every country has foreign policy and that is why we take interest. I said it in one sentence. spot took it about another 100 steps further. Both are straight up answers, honest and logical. The only left out bit is "good" which is entirely subjective.

fyi, both answers were the same.
Good because that is what I got out of it. Just thought I was stupid.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:24 pm

koan;537661 wrote: I said that every country has foreign policy and that is why we take interest. I said it in one sentence. spot took it about another 100 steps further. Both are straight up answers, honest and logical. The only left out bit is "good" which is entirely subjective.

fyi, both answers were the same.

thanks koan , ill get wise guy to explain that later:wah:

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:40 pm

Sweet Tooth;536929 wrote: Hey all you Brits! Why are you so worried about US Politics!!!! Why dont you worry about your own scum-for-a-Prince Charles for a while!!! And lets not forget the infamous Tony Blair! CNN is making bank off of him!
irst inform you all that I do not consider myself to be a "Brit" in any way, shape or form. Tha mi Albannachd.

I worry about US politics because you currently have the richest economy on the planet, your present government is run by a cretinous (and here, I am being very generous) puppet whose strings are being pulled by Halliburton. I also worry because your nation is the largest consumer of resources on the face of the earth - resources which cannot be replaced.

Now, as regards Bat-ears, if you want him, he's yours.

Tony Blair should, along with George W Bush (currently President of the USA and Commander-in-Chief of your military forces) be arraigned in the World Court and charged with War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They should tried, found guilty and given the apporpriate sentence. As I, like most Europeans, am opposed to the death penalty, this could lead to them and their advisers receiving sentences of uo to 15,000 years at hard labour (as distinct from "New" Labour).

Moving on to Spots post, I have rarely encountered such a farrago of utter nonsense. Himself said:- "A few essential tie-break and emergency circumstances rely on the personal initiative of the Monarch - currently Queen Elizabeth the Second , long may she reign over us [no thank you] - but other than that our constitution

The major offices she holds are Head of the Armed Services [possibly, like GW then?], Head of the Established Church , Head of the Judiciary [not in this Country], Convenor and Dismisser of Parliaments (both Houses of which sit at her authority and subject to her permission) [Do they Buggery]. They're roles which, if handed to temporary custodians, would far more often be misused by the office holder for party or class advantage. Charles has spent a lifetime, literally, being readied for continuing that constitutional position. I can see no reason at all to think he could be improved on. He has no political axe to grind, he has heirs himself [doubtful, much more likely is the fact that James Hewitt has heirs] being schooled to the same task, it's a terrible task to impose on any family but the Windsors [more correctly, they should be referred to as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha], through the vagaries of history, drew the short straw and manfully shouldered the burden.

I hope the italicised bit was you being ironic.

And, as far as "Princess Di" is concerned, who gives a damn?

She's dead, no matter who did it or didn't did it.

For myself personally, I couldn't care less, the sooner the whole parasitic tribe are wiped out the better.

Does that answer any questions?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:43 pm

That the Queen actually does work.

just kidding ya'll I knew she did.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:49 pm

Sheryl;537713 wrote: That the Queen actually does work.

just kidding ya'll I knew she did.

I'm damned if I did and I still say it's bulls hit.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:58 pm

Chookie;537708 wrote: Moving on to Spots post, I have rarely encountered such a farrago of utter nonsense. Himself said:- "A few essential tie-break and emergency circumstances rely on the personal initiative of the Monarch You're questioning this as a matter of fact, as opposed to your distaste for the fact? Have a quick read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_ ... ional_role and consider whether I'm at least close to what's there. As to choosing the next Prime Minister off her own bat, look up Rab Butler for one, and the decision on whether to go to the country or to ask for a new attempt at forming a government by Ted Heath. They were both her call. The matter of emergency powers involve her taking control in the event of major civil unrest by means of the Lords Lieutenant who are all personal appointees of the Monarchy, and those rights are absolute and very constitutional indeed.

Chookie;537708 wrote:

- currently Queen Elizabeth the Second
Perhaps you could explain why rather than merely contend otherwise. I have no idea what you're even implying by this. Oh - and on the matter of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha... her birth name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor.

Chookie;537708 wrote:

long may she reign over us [no thank you] - but other than that our constitution
"The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century" by Vernon Bogdanor might clarify the issue for you. Professor Bogdanor is quite confident that there is and his editing of this monograph goes into considerable detail.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:09 pm

Since everyone is defining the political dispensations of their countries I shall give mine. My country is called "The Republic of Ireland", it is a constitutional republic of which every member of society is a citizen, we have a president with a constitutional role similar to that of the British Queen though we have an actual written and explicit constitution which is quite different to the unique British case (also obviously the Queen's role is somewhat more cloudy in terms of Scotland as chookie pointed out, and Northern Ireland BTW, but in general what Spot says in terms of the Queens position seems accurate enough to me, but thats for another time). Our president is elected every 7 years by direct election, and his/her role (the last 2 have been women) is to uphold the constitution, and act as head of the armed forces, the president is not sovereign, and neither is the parliament (the Dail), (unlike Britain), the citizens are sovereign through the constitution.

We also have a Senate (The Seanad) that oversees the enactment of legislation, with some directly elected and some via an electoral college. The two chambers are known collectively as "Houses of the Oireachtas", and also incorporate 4 types of legislative committees for legislative oversight (similar to Westminster cabinet select committees). The Dail is an elected chamber similar to the house of commons, where the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), has a similar de facto position to the British prime minister in the day to day running of the state and is the key decision maker within the legislature, his/her position is also simply that of leader of the largest party in the Dail, and they and their government can be dismissed by our President.

Our courts are completely separate from the legislature (as in Britain), and the Church is also separate, our society is secular, though for many years the Catholic church had a huge and direct influence on social policies and we were famous for it, though that has changed completely now, though the cultural influence of the Catholic church is still there. In general our system has influences from England, and the U.S., as well as other European democracies, and like most countries we have some things that are uniquely our own, generally our system is an excellent one, and has provided stable, democratic government since its inception.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:18 pm

spot;537735 wrote: You're questioning this as a matter of fact, as opposed to your distaste for the fact? I make no secret of the fact that I am a Republican Have a quick read of Wikpedia - useful for quick references? and consider whether I'm at least close to what's there. As to choosing the next Prime Minister off her own bat (********d up this time then?), look up Rab Butler for one, and the decision on whether to go to the country or to ask for a new attempt at forming a government by Ted Heath. They were both her call. The matter of emergency powers involve her taking control in the event of major civil unrest by means of the Lords Lieutenant who are all personal appointees of the Monarchy, and those rights are absolute and very constitutional indeed.

Perhaps you could explain why rather than merely contend otherwise. [Explanation as requested:- There has not been, in the history of Scotland. any queen named Elizabeth. The fact that there was an Elizabeth Tudor who queened in England is immaterial, when she died the English throne was subsumed into that of Scotland. there has never been a Queen Elizabeth of the (soon to be Dis-)United Kingdom.] I have no idea what you're even implying by this. Oh - and on the matter of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha... her birth name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. But her family name - until 1914 was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - it was changed because it was thought that people might think there was some connection between themselves and their cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicolai.

"The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century" by Vernon Bogdanor might clarify the issue for you. Professor Bogdanor is quite confident that there is and his editing of this monograph goes into considerable detail.

Can he provide written proof of the existence of this fiction?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:31 pm

Chookie;537749 wrote: Can he provide written proof of the existence of this fiction?
You know as well as I do that a constitution has no need to be a written document to be a reality. I'm not sure why you're pushing any of this at all. Of course there's a British Constitution and it happens to consist of a lot of history and scattered precedent rather than a single drafted text.

The numbering of monarchs is part of the royal prerogative, and not governed by the Act of Union. She can call herself "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" simply because nobody has the power to challenge her decision in the matter. She's the Law.

As you say, her family name was changed in 1914. She was born in 1926. She was never named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It's like claiming a third-generation descendant of the Russian Pale isn't called Stephens like his grandfather anglicized it, he's still called Schereschewsky.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:35 pm

It should be highly revealing to Americans about a thread about whether the Brits knock the yanks, has included two Brits arguing about Scotland and England, so as you can see, in general you can see that having arguments about politics in Britain or anywhere else is not confined to discussing U.S. foreign policy, and freedom of speech remains intact in the U.K. as ever. :wah:

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:35 pm

spot;537764 wrote: You know as well as I do that a constitution has no need to be a written document to be a reality. I'm not sure why you're pushing any of this at all. Of course there's a British Constitution and it happens to consist of a lot of history and scattered precedent rather than a single drafted text.

Unless there is a lawful, or even legal, need to cite it in a court of law, where it vanishes like snaw aff a dyke.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:37 pm

Galbally;537770 wrote: It should be highly revealing to Americans about a thread about whether the Brits knock the yanks, has included

arguing about Scotland and England, so as you can see, in general you can see that having arguments about politics in Britain or anywhere else is not confined to discussing U.S. foreign policy, and freedom of speech remains intact in the U.K. as ever. :wah:

To reiterate- I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO BE A "BRIT"

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:40 pm

spot;537764 wrote: The numbering of monarchs is part of the royal prerogative, and not governed by the Act of Union. She can call herself "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" simply because nobody has the power to challenge her decision in the matter. She's the Law.

Are you quite sure that the Queen is the "Law" as you put it, it was my understanding that since the English civil war, the restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, the monarch rules indeed, but only with the acquiescence of Parliament, which has the power as a collective body to remove the monarch and reassert its own pre-eminence within the entire system should it ever wish to do so? Am I wrong in thinking this?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:42 pm

Chookie;537773 wrote: To reiterate- I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO BE A "BRIT"

I understand. I meant it in a nice way, not a bad one. Of course whether Scotland remains in Union with the rest of the U.K. is a matter for yourselves.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:49 pm

Galbally;537777 wrote: Are you quite sure that the Queen is the "Law" as you put it, it was my understanding that since the English civil war, the restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, the monarch rules indeed, but only with the acquiescence of Parliament, which has the power as a collective body to remove the monarch and reassert its own pre-eminence within the entire system should it ever wish to do so? Am I wrong in thinking this?

A revolution is a revolution. Law involves constitutional rights and I don't believe parliament can constitutionally vote the Queen out.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:51 pm

spot;537764 wrote: She can call herself "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith - not in Scotland it can't -" simply because nobody has the power to challenge her decision in the matter. She's the Law.

"She" most certainly is not. There is a fiction, popular in England, that Parliament, and by some form of (not known to rational beings) extension, the "Monarch" is sovereign. This may be, but, in Scotland, the people are sovereign.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:01 pm

Chookie;537793 wrote: "She" most certainly is not. There is a fiction, popular in England, that Parliament, and by some form of (not known to rational beings) extension, the "Monarch" is sovereign. This may be, but, in Scotland, the people are sovereign.
MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396) contested the right of the Queen to style herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union. The case was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown.

So much for "in Scotland, the people are sovereign".

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:14 pm

The Act of Union (which is a misnomer - there was, in fact a treaty - ) is, and always was, honoured more in the breach than in Law.

Koan posted: - MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396) contested the right of the Queen to style herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union (see above).

The case was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown. This was a specious interpretation of English law as it applied to the monarchy (basically, monarchs can do anything to anyone, anytime) and it was influenced by the recent "theft" of the "Stone of Destiny" from Westmonster Abbey by Scottish patriots.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:25 pm

Chookie;537896 wrote: The Act of Union (which is a misnomer - there was, in fact a treaty - ) is, and always was, honoured more in the breach than in Law.

Koan posted: - MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396) contested the right of the Queen to style herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union (see above).

The case was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown. This was a specious interpretation of English law as it applied to the monarchy (basically, monarchs can do anything to anyone, anytime) and it was influenced by the recent "theft" of the "Stone of Destiny" from Westmonster Abbey by Scottish patriots.

yep

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:39 am

Oh sure, yes the USA, (cue "evil" empire music) erm............ booooo!............. Hiss! your evil corporations, you neo con spawns of the devil, you have too many burgers, gun fun, bush, KKK, erm, I hear that Tampa Florida has turned evil as well, and erm, oh you know, DOWN WITH THAT SORT OF THING!

Right thats told them, lets move on to another target. Perhaps the Germans (they haven't gone away you know). :wah: What about Wales, they always get away with it don't they? why not slag the Welsh for a change?

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:45 am

Galbally;538144 wrote: Oh sure, yes the USA, (cue "evil" empire music) erm............ booooo!............. Hiss! your evil corporations, you neo con spawns of the devil, you have too many burgers, gun fun, bush, KKK, erm, I hear that Tampa Florida has turned evil as well, and erm, oh you know, DOWN WITH THAT SORT OF THING!

Right thats told them, lets move on to another target. Perhaps the Germans (they haven't gone away you know). :wah: What about Wales, they always get away with it don't they? why not slag the Welsh for a change?

Am sniggering at the Father Ted impression, but getting by arsenal ready to defend the Welsh!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:46 am

Elvira;538148 wrote: Am sniggering at the Father Ted impression, but getting by arsenal ready to defend the Welsh!

Aye, "careful now". :wah:

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:56 am

Galbally;538149 wrote: Aye, "careful now". :wah:

Is that gobsh!te on the television agein?:wah:

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:07 am

Hamster;538190 wrote: Lol..I haven't heard that one for ages!

I love it!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:31 am

Feick off the lot of ye's the bishop Brennan is coming round I have to collect some rabbits, jaysus. :wah:

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:34 am

Galbally;538204 wrote: Feick off the lot of ye's the bishop Brennan is coming round I have to collect some rabbits, jaysus. :wah:

But sure, you'll have a cuppa tea before ye go won't ye? Ah, ye will! ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, ye will, :wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:44 am

Thats it, I'm calling the guards! And I don't want any ham sandwiches either Mrs Elvia. I must do hope my song makes it for Ireland in the Eurovision, and that Father Dick Brennan gets a kick up the hole!

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:28 am

Koan, maybe they were the same answers but all of your posts up until page 23 were "mega bitch attitude" posts besides the one, which you say was your answer. You get pissed off when people dont stick to the topic or give smart ass, snide comments under your discussions. So please dont do it yourself. Thanks.

And spot, thanks, that was very informative. And I dont have a problem with anyone bashing the USA like Sweet Tooth. Her and I may be friends but we are on totally different sides of the political and religous spectrum.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:40 am

DesignerGal;538254 wrote: Koan, maybe they were the same answers but all of your posts up until page 23 were "mega bitch attitude" posts What was it Max Bialystok said? If you've got it, flaunt it?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:55 am

koan;537789 wrote: A revolution is a revolution. Law involves constitutional rights and I don't believe parliament can constitutionally vote the Queen out.

I am not so sure, spot, whats your opinion on this?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:40 am

Diuretic;538311 wrote: Sorry I'm not spot -

- but Koan is right.

Hmmn, explain your reason for this opinion diruetic, I'd like to know what the actual legal and political position is, I am not so sure about this at all.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:43 am

Diuretic;537970 wrote: Given that Scottish law is derived from many sources, one of which is Roman Law then the division between public law and private law is valid. Public law is the province of the Monarch (as it is in common law) while private law is of course for individuals. Since Scotland isn't a republic but a constitutional monarchy then it follows that the Monarch is the legal figurehead. Just like in Australia.

Can we get back to bashing the US now

:wah: love an honest person!! Bash away!! and I'm an american saying that

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:00 am

Galbally;538361 wrote: Hmmn, explain your reason for this opinion diruetic, I'd like to know what the actual legal and political position is, I am not so sure about this at all.

It's a question of precedent. The last time it was done it was called the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and it wasn't a lawful constitutional action by the people doing it, as the name indicates. The time before involved cutting King Charles the First's head from his shoulders and refusing to have a replacement, that experiment lasted just over ten years. I'd say that it would take a revolution to unseat the reigning monarch.

Parliament has the right of veto over royal marriages, which is what they employed to put the Duke of Windsor into an impossible position with regard to that American divorcee he was infatuated with. He abdicated, you'll remember, he wasn't fired because there was no lawful mechanism which allowed parliament to fire him.