|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 25, 2024 8:35:34 GMT
The reigning Monarch is Sovereign in name only, it our Parliament of the day that is Sovereign Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 25, 2024 8:49:59 GMT
The reigning Monarch is Sovereign in name only, it our Parliament of the day that is Sovereign Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best Well he could, but the next bill put in front of Big Ears would be an act of Abdication. The Princess of Wales knows that, as do all the royals that count. They know that they are there to open the hospitals, smile a lot and cheer us all up. If they have any ideas beyond that they are free to step down and run for Windsor Borough Council |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 25, 2024 9:09:45 GMT
Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best The Princess of Wales knows that, as do all the royals that count. They know that they are there to open the hospitals, smile a lot and cheer us all up. If they have any ideas beyond that they are free to step down and run for Windsor Borough Council Which he could refuse to sign, and we would have no legal apparatus to change that. The Armed Forces and Police swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch. The Police also swear to uphold the Law, as things stand the Law permits the Monarch to refuse to ratify an Act Of Parliament. We are a Constitutional Monarchy with a nominally democratic, probouleutic Government. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 25, 2024 9:33:18 GMT
France landmass 551,695 km²
UK landmass 244,376 km2
UK tourism 37 million 2023, given that France has double the land mass than the UK that makes them almost level pegging in tourism.
I suppose you think you are funny mentioning pegging? Have some respect in this time of tragedy in the Wales household. Absolutely no idea what you are on about (as usual), is it another attempt to change the topic in to your Gaza crusade? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 25, 2024 9:46:02 GMT
The issue I have with those that suggest replacing the the Monarchy is who are you going to replace them with?. Why do we need to replace them at all? That is a false argument. We have a Democratic (loosely at least) Government, and a Prime Minister. We have the House Of Lords (needs to become an elected chamber) for Advising and Revising Government Policy. What else do we need? All The Best The same democracy that tried to overturn Brexit ...the will of the people.
The same House of Frauds that is blocking any attempt to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.
They need to sit up and look at what's going on in Ireland right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 25, 2024 9:55:00 GMT
Why do we need to replace them at all? That is a false argument. We have a Democratic (loosely at least) Government, and a Prime Minister. We have the House Of Lords (needs to become an elected chamber) for Advising and Revising Government Policy. What else do we need? All The Best The same democracy that tried to overturn Brexit ...the will of the people.
The same House of Frauds that is blocking any attempt to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.
They need to sit up and look at what's going on in Ireland right now.
1) We got Brexit - so they did not block the "will of the people". 2) The HoL is there to advise on and revise legislation from the HoC where that legislation is flawed, and especially where it is inconsistent wit the law. Sending Illegal Immigrants to Rwanda was at the time of their initial blocking of that legislation illegal under international agreements the UK willingly signed up to. Thus the HoL would have been guilty of dereliction of duty had it not opposed the Rwanda Bill. The Government have since pushed through the Rwanda Bill by arbitrarily claiming Rwanda is a safe destination without providing any evidence it is so. All of which is pointless anyway because Illegal Immigration is less than 10% of the actual Immigration Problem, and the Tories WANT more Immigration so their real paymasters can have cheaper labour. Why is it that you think the Tories want to do anything about reducing Immigration when they have enabled the largest increase in Immigration in the last 20 years? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 25, 2024 10:02:41 GMT
The same democracy that tried to overturn Brexit ...the will of the people.
The same House of Frauds that is blocking any attempt to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.
They need to sit up and look at what's going on in Ireland right now.
1) We got Brexit - so they did not block the "will of the people". 2) The HoL is there to advise on and revise legislation from the HoC where that legislation is flawed, and especially where it is inconsistent wit the law. Sending Illegal Immigrants to Rwanda was at the time of their initial blocking of that legislation illegal under international agreements the UK willingly signed up to. Thus the HoL would have been guilty of dereliction of duty had it not opposed the Rwanda Bill. The Government have since pushed through the Rwanda Bill by arbitrarily claiming Rwanda is a safe destination without providing any evidence it is so. All of which is pointless anyway because Illegal Immigration is less than 10% of the actual Immigration Problem, and the Tories WANT more Immigration so their real paymasters can have cheaper labour. Why is it that you think the Tories want to do anything about reducing Immigration when they have enabled the largest increase in Immigration in the last 20 years?All The Best Where did I say the Tories want to do anything about reducing Immigration?
As many posters have said Tony Blair started it with opening the floodgates for legal migration , he imposed no limits or restrictions, he made it a FREE FOR ALL.
However he can't be blamed for this illegal channel crossing, this lies purely at the feet of the Tories, they've had years to sort it out and it's getting worse not better, the fact they keep pouring millions and millions of tax payers money in to hotels, accommodation, and now it's revealed they have given £70 million of tax payers money so they can help fight deportation.
Sunak is a liberal he has no intentions of stopping these illegal migrants, deep down he feels they should be allowed to the UK just like his parents, what he doesn't realise that these illegal are a completely different breed to his parents back in the day, it's only when a member of his family or government are targeted by these criminals that he might actually sit up and do something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 25, 2024 10:05:58 GMT
1) We got Brexit - so they did not block the "will of the people". 2) The HoL is there to advise on and revise legislation from the HoC where that legislation is flawed, and especially where it is inconsistent wit the law. Sending Illegal Immigrants to Rwanda was at the time of their initial blocking of that legislation illegal under international agreements the UK willingly signed up to. Thus the HoL would have been guilty of dereliction of duty had it not opposed the Rwanda Bill. The Government have since pushed through the Rwanda Bill by arbitrarily claiming Rwanda is a safe destination without providing any evidence it is so. All of which is pointless anyway because Illegal Immigration is less than 10% of the actual Immigration Problem, and the Tories WANT more Immigration so their real paymasters can have cheaper labour. Why is it that you think the Tories want to do anything about reducing Immigration when they have enabled the largest increase in Immigration in the last 20 years?All The Best Where did I say the Tories want to do anything about reducing Immigration?
As many posters have said Tony Blair started it with opening the floodgates for legal migration , he imposed no limits or restrictions, he made it a FREE FOR ALL.
However he can't be blamed for this illegal channel crossing, this lies purely at the feet of the Tories, they've had years to sort it out and it's getting worse not better, the fact they keep pouring millions and millions of tax payers money in to hotels, accommodation, and now it's revealed they have given £70 million of tax payers money so they can help fight deportation.
Sunak is a liberal he has no intentions of stopping these illegal migrants, deep down he feels they should be allowed to the UK just like his parents, what he doesn't realise that these illegal are a completely different breed to his parents back in the day, it's only when a member of his family or government are targeted by these criminals that he might actually sit up and do something about it.
Just another of pv's strawmen mate.... |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 25, 2024 10:06:22 GMT
Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best Well he could, but the next bill put in front of Big Ears would be an act of Abdication. The Princess of Wales knows that, as do all the royals that count. They know that they are there to open the hospitals, smile a lot and cheer us all up. If they have any ideas beyond that they are free to step down and run for Windsor Borough Council Exactly it could bring about a Constitutional Crisis and as Parliament has all the power the Monarch of the day since the restoration simply rubber stamps what Parliament puts before the Monarch |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 25, 2024 11:33:02 GMT
Trump became Head of State on merit? .......  Never said that did I? On, no, I didn't say that at all. If the only way you can make a point is knocking down Straw Men YOU erected then you don't really have a point. All The Best So how are you going to choose someone on merit if not by public acclaim - selection by the great and the good? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2024 11:40:54 GMT
Well he could, but the next bill put in front of Big Ears would be an act of Abdication. The Princess of Wales knows that, as do all the royals that count. They know that they are there to open the hospitals, smile a lot and cheer us all up. If they have any ideas beyond that they are free to step down and run for Windsor Borough Council Exactly it could bring about a Constitutional Crisis and as Parliament has all the power the Monarch of the day since the restoration simply rubber stamps what Parliament puts before the Monarch It's mostly about bringing something up to royal assent, which could in theory be done without the royals whilst keeping the monarchy intact.
The Left/Islamists confuse us for an absolute monarchy a lot of the time. But they're mostly liars and backwards, which places like this highlight all of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 25, 2024 12:46:46 GMT
The reigning Monarch is Sovereign in name only, it our Parliament of the day that is Sovereign Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best We could abolish the monarchy . The monarchy couldn’t survive a refusal . |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 25, 2024 12:47:32 GMT
I doubt that anybody can do much about immigration. The UK is prosperous and other parts of the world aren't so nothing is going to stop folk trying to get into the country. Still, if the locals are happy to live in sub standard housing and work for sod all an hour, that might solve some of the problem  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 25, 2024 12:51:18 GMT
I doubt that anybody can do much about immigration. The UK is prosperous and other parts of the world aren't so nothing is going to stop folk trying to get into the country. Still, if the locals are happy to live in sub standard housing and work for sod all an hour, that might solve some of the problem This country is as prosperous as someone who has a substantial overdraft , and near endless number of credit cards. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 25, 2024 12:57:46 GMT
Well, that's wrong for a start. The Monarch has the right to refuse to sign into law any Act Of Parliament put before them by the government of the day. They have not exercised that right in quite some time, but they still have it and there is nothing we can do about it if they choose to use it. All The Best We could abolish the monarchy . The monarchy couldn’t survive a refusal . Is that the Royal we ? If it was tried IMO you would be up against strong opposition more people are Royalists than those who are not, would any Government risk that ? in fact IMHO it could bring the Government of the day down if millions objected to it |
|
