|
|
Post by Orac on May 22, 2024 8:10:28 GMT
I have deleted the see2 vs Pro Veritas nonsense. Any more additions will result in further action.
Reminder - this is mind-zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 22, 2024 10:22:47 GMT
I have deleted the see2 vs Pro Veritas nonsense. Any more additions will result in further action. Reminder - this is mind-zone. Oh, but blatant lies and racism get to stand. Great.... All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 23, 2024 6:23:41 GMT
I have deleted the see2 vs Pro Veritas nonsense. Any more additions will result in further action. Reminder - this is mind-zone. Good decision, well done. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 27, 2024 19:55:01 GMT
The issue of royal assent has not been addressed because there is no need to. The issue of the absolute power of the monarch 1) has been addressed by chopping off a King's head during a civil war and having a Lord protector for about a decade. 2) When teh restoration did come the King's power were much diminished and amended. So Constitutional Crises occur and when they do there is a dramatic corrective procedure. This is why Royal Assent has not been, and will not be, tested as the risks to the well being of the monarch should he attempt denial of RA are pretty high. 3) The monarch knows this, the courts know this, Parliament knows this and the people know this; in fact the only person in the land who does not know it seems to be you wallowing in the pedantry of legality within our Constitution.2) But Royal Assent - the real impediment to a genuine Democracy - was left untouched. All The Best There is no impediment to genuine democracy in the UK as long as the Monarchs continues to do what they have done for over 200 years. So in practice the UK has been a real democracy for over 200 years and will continue to be so until the unlikely day it is challenged. So what's your problem. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 3:14:31 GMT
2) But Royal Assent - the real impediment to a genuine Democracy - was left untouched. All The Best There is no impediment to genuine democracy in the UK as long as the Monarchs continues to do what they have done for over 200 years. So in practice the UK has been a real democracy for over 200 years and will continue to be so until the unlikely day it is challenged. So what's your problem. So as long as the Monarch chooses not to withhold Royal Assent we can pretend to be a Democracy. You are dumb enough to think that makes us a genuine Democracy? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 28, 2024 6:22:22 GMT
There is no impediment to genuine democracy in the UK as long as the Monarchs continues to do what they have done for over 200 years. So in practice the UK has been a real democracy for over 200 years and will continue to be so until the unlikely day it is challenged. So what's your problem. So as long as the Monarch chooses not to withhold Royal Assent we can pretend to be a Democracy. You are dumb enough to think that makes us a genuine Democracy? All The Best To all intents and purposes we have been a fully functioning democracy since 1708, and remain so. So why are you ignoring the reality? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 6:30:00 GMT
So as long as the Monarch chooses not to withhold Royal Assent we can pretend to be a Democracy. You are dumb enough to think that makes us a genuine Democracy? All The Best To all intents and purposes we have been a fully functioning democracy since 1708, and remain so. So why are you ignoring the reality? You mean the reality that no law can be added to the statute books unless the monarch grants Royal Assent. You mean the reality that the PM has to ask permission to dissolve Parliament from the Monarch. You mean the reality that no session of Parliament can form a Government without permission from the Monarch. Does that really sound like a Democracy to you? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 28, 2024 7:49:43 GMT
To all intents and purposes we have been a fully functioning democracy since 1708, and remain so. So why are you ignoring the reality? You mean the reality that no law can be added to the statute books unless the monarch grants Royal Assent. You mean the reality that the PM has to ask permission to dissolve Parliament from the Monarch. You mean the reality that no session of Parliament can form a Government without permission from the Monarch. Does that really sound like a Democracy to you? All The Best Perhaps you should define clearly what a democracy is in your eyes. To my mind it is where the people have the ultimate power and it matters little if that power is wielded in a legal fashion within the confines of the existing Constitution or whether it is wielded through what we could describe as extra curricular activity. France was a monarchy but in the end the people held the power and those who thought they held the power did not. The whole point is that peaceful power is a delicate balance of considering the wishes of others which makes it a democracy. In many countries the riot and the coup are the plebiscite, it is not an efficient way to run a country so our delicate balance is far better with all its flaws and imperfections. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 8:37:56 GMT
You mean the reality that no law can be added to the statute books unless the monarch grants Royal Assent. You mean the reality that the PM has to ask permission to dissolve Parliament from the Monarch. You mean the reality that no session of Parliament can form a Government without permission from the Monarch. Does that really sound like a Democracy to you? All The Best and it matters little if that power is wielded in a legal fashion within the confines of the existing Constitution or whether it is wielded through what we could describe as extra curricular activity. France was a monarchy but in the end the people held the power and those who thought they held the power did not. The whole point is that peaceful power is a delicate balance of considering the wishes of others which makes it a democracy. In many countries the riot and the coup are the plebiscite, it is not an efficient way to run a country so our delicate balance is far better with all its flaws and imperfections. I agree, but we don't have that. What we have is: 1) Political parties choose "representatives" -so the People have no "ultimate power" here. 2) The People vote for a single Representative, from the party-controlled short-list given them - so the people have no ultimate power here either. 3) Once elected the Representative largely ignores the wishes of those the are supposed to represent, and does what the Party tells them to do - even when that is in direct opposition to the known views of the People; so the People have no power here either. 4) These alleged Representatives then craft Laws and Policies that are, with rare exceptions, never put to the People for approval; so the People have no ultimate power here either. 5) Before those Laws can actually be added to the Statute Book, Parliament MUST obtain Royal Assent (which can be refused and the People would have no say in that), so the People don't have ultimate power here either. Nowhere at all in the alleged Democratic Process do the People ever have Ultimate Power, and so by your definition we are NOT a Democracy. In fact our "Democracy" boils down to having, one one day every 5 or so years, the "power" to vote for one candidate from a short-list of candidates, none of whom were chosen by the People to be on that short-list. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 28, 2024 10:13:41 GMT
To all intents and purposes we have been a fully functioning democracy since 1708, and remain so. So why are you ignoring the reality? You mean the reality that no law can be added to the statute books unless the monarch grants Royal Assent. You mean the reality that the PM has to ask permission to dissolve Parliament from the Monarch. You mean the reality that no session of Parliament can form a Government without permission from the Monarch. Does that really sound like a Democracy to you? All The Best It is all formality, and in no way alters the reality in my post that you replied to. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 12:00:39 GMT
You mean the reality that no law can be added to the statute books unless the monarch grants Royal Assent. You mean the reality that the PM has to ask permission to dissolve Parliament from the Monarch. You mean the reality that no session of Parliament can form a Government without permission from the Monarch. Does that really sound like a Democracy to you? All The Best It is all formality, and in no way alters the reality in my post that you replied to. The next time a post by you refers to reality will be the first. All The Best |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 12:33:05 GMT
It is all formality, and in no way alters the reality in my post that you replied to. The next time a post by you refers to reality will be the first. All The Best He's right. The issue is that you just repeat your propaganda whilst ignoring everything else. The monarchy doesn't interfere in the parliamentary process, which is why you just repeat your propaganda instead of providing actual proof to the contrary. It may take action if people like you try and destroy the constitutional monarchy that is the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 14:04:16 GMT
He's right. The issue is that you just repeat your propaganda whilst ignoring everything else. Irony Overload Alert The monarchy doesn't interfere in the parliamentary process, Not the pertinent point, nor was it ever the point I was making. The actual point where Democracy fails, and the actual point I was making is: The Monarch CAN interfere if it wants to, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to stop it. But hey, way to miss the actual point, as usual. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 28, 2024 18:50:31 GMT
Perhaps you should define clearly what a democracy is in your eyes. To my mind it is where the people have the ultimate power and it matters little if that power is wielded in a legal fashion within the confines of the existing Constitution or whether it is wielded through what we could describe as extra curricular activity. France was a monarchy but in the end the people held the power and those who thought they held the power did not. The whole point is that peaceful power is a delicate balance of considering the wishes of others which makes it a democracy. In many countries the riot and the coup are the plebiscite, it is not an efficient way to run a country so our delicate balance is far better with all its flaws and imperfections. I agree, but we don't have that. What we have is: 1) Political parties choose "representatives" -so the People have no "ultimate power" here. 2) The People vote for a single Representative, from the party-controlled short-list given them - so the people have no ultimate power here either. 3) Once elected the Representative largely ignores the wishes of those the are supposed to represent, and does what the Party tells them to do - even when that is in direct opposition to the known views of the People; so the People have no power here either. 4) These alleged Representatives then craft Laws and Policies that are, with rare exceptions, never put to the People for approval; so the People have no ultimate power here either. 5) Before those Laws can actually be added to the Statute Book, Parliament MUST obtain Royal Assent (which can be refused and the People would have no say in that), so the People don't have ultimate power here either. Nowhere at all in the alleged Democratic Process do the People ever have Ultimate Power, and so by your definition we are NOT a Democracy. In fact our "Democracy" boils down to having, one one day every 5 or so years, the "power" to vote for one candidate from a short-list of candidates, none of whom were chosen by the People to be on that short-list. All The Best Well ultimate power does rest with the people. We can numerous examples from history where it was British public opinion that changed the policies in operation. These views were expressed in Parliament, in the Newspapers, in independent publications, in public meetings and in public protests. The Boer internment camps as a policy were changed, the black and tans were withdrawn, action in Hola camp was reformed and investigated, the poll tax was changed and all British Politicians worked extremely hard to get the Newspapers on their side as they knew the power of public opinion. If you believe that once every five years is the sum total of British democracy you are sadly out of touch with the real world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 19:54:58 GMT
He's right. The issue is that you just repeat your propaganda whilst ignoring everything else. Irony Overload Alert The monarchy doesn't interfere in the parliamentary process, Not the pertinent point, nor was it ever the point I was making. The actual point where Democracy fails, and the actual point I was making is: The Monarch CAN interfere if it wants to, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to stop it. But hey, way to miss the actual point, as usual. All The Best This is your claim, but you have no proof of this. |
|
