noachian

Here here!

See Smidgey, I am agreeing with this person....but I am sure there is a promblem to that aswell.

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

Smidgey

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

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.

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?

I don't actually, please enlighten me.

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

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.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Smidgey

Thanks for the reply.

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

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

noachian

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


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!"


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

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.

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


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.

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.

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!

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

gimlet

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.

rjt

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

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Aardvark

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:

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).

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

douglas denny

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.
-

noachian

I agree;

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

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

twizzel

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.