PDA

View Full Version : Queen to dissolve government?


Jerrek
23-10-2003, 21:47
It seems that the "EU Constitution" that Tony Blair is pushing for strips the Queen of most of her Royals Power and perogatives and hands them over to Burssels or the "EU Prime Minister" (Read: the hopeful Tony Blair).

Apparently the Queen had actually discussed the Constitution with Tony Balir before to address her concerns about exactly what powers this gave to the EU and took from her and was assured this would not effect her or remove any powers from her at all.

Yet this is exactly what the Constitution DOES do.

As such she's now consulting lawyers and a few Princes are very annoyed and they have been told they can, and are considering, disolving parliament if they don't get some truth about this and a Referendum is called on the subject. They consider this the "nuclear" option but if they are left with no choice they WILL disolve parliament and call a general election.

Looks like Tony Blair may have shot himself in the foot.

Lying to the general public is one thing, but lying to the Queen and trying to strip her of her powers? Isn't that treason? I also believe that is covered by the death penalty in the United Kingdom.


I really don't like the agenda Tony Blair is pushing down onto the Britains. He is refusing them a referendum. I think it would be a good thing if the Queen dissolves the parliament and hold a general election. If Tony Blair did indeed lie to the Queen, he should be punished appropiately. I hope he didn't though.

downquark1
23-10-2003, 21:51
Britain has been around a lot longer than America, as a result our system is a mix of old and new. Whenever an oldie causes a problem it's usually changed, if the queen causes a fuss the people will dethrone her and dissolved the monarchy. Unless of course the people agree with her. Why do you think she hasn't made any official orders since, since... When was the last time the queen ordered something??? I guess the people would have been behind her if she refused to give Tony HER army for iraq,

Jerrek
23-10-2003, 21:56
I hope she dissolves the government and calls an election and referendum. It will give you Brits a fighting chance to not join the European Union.

downquark1
23-10-2003, 21:59
I hope she dissolves the government and calls an election and referendum. It will give you Brits a fighting chance to not join the European Union.Curious, what are you reasons behind that?

Jerrek
23-10-2003, 22:01
Tony Blair doesn't want to call referendum because he knows that by democracy, the majority of the people wouldn't want to join the European Union. Good for them. It would be a bad move, and it seems Her Majesty agrees.

Xaccers
23-10-2003, 22:03
It would be an interesting referendum.
It would be a vote for the monarchy as much as keeping Britain out of Europe.

downquark1
23-10-2003, 22:04
Relics we are stuck with (but not necessarily bad):
The monarchy
the house of lords
London traffic system
General traffic system
Schools that look like old country homes
Royal mail
The pompus memory of owning 3/4 of the world :drool:
the stereotype of being either posh men in top hats or crude cockneys
The knowledge america could have been ours :(
Dislike of the French and Irish

any others?

dr wadd
23-10-2003, 22:07
Tony Blair doesn't want to call referendum because he knows that by democracy, the majority of the people wouldn't want to join the European Union. Good for them. It would be a bad move, and it seems Her Majesty agrees.

There is absolutely no obligation for any prime minister to call a referendum on any topic as we have a representational democracy, not a participatory democracy.

But the sooner Europe becomes a single unified country the better, it will provide a power that can genuinely stand up to the USA. As for the royal family, I think you`ll find the French had the right idea about that.

Ramrod
23-10-2003, 22:10
I am divided on the Europe issue. On one hand I love Europe, it's food, culture and many other things. I would love it if we were more of a part of it. On the other hand Brussels is (imo) a corrupt, wasteful gravy train that should never be entrusted with running our country and has far too much power over us already.

Xaccers
23-10-2003, 22:10
Relics we are stuck with (but not necessarily bad):

The pompus memory of owning 3/4 of the world :drool:
How many kids these days know we used to own 3/4 of the world? :P


the stereotype of being either posh men in top hats or crude cockneys

Blame the american's for that :D

The knowledge america could have been ours :(

Is it that much of a loss?

Dislike of the French
They're French, how can we not dislike them? They even dislike themselves :D



tee-hee

Jerrek
23-10-2003, 22:12
There is absolutely no obligation for any prime minister to call a referendum on any topic as we have a representational democracy, not a participatory democracy.
That is true, but in a case of something like this, why not let the people decide?

And why would you like to stand up against the United States so much? Inferiority complex?

Xaccers
23-10-2003, 22:15
I am divided on the Europe issue. On one hand I love Europe, it's food, culture and many other things. I would love it if we were more of a part of it. On the other hand Brussels is (imo) a corrupt, wasteful gravy train that should never be entrusted with running our country and has far too much power over us already.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Ramrod.
Most people I know see brussels like that.
They don't feel that brussels has our best interests at heart, but its own.
If brussels was efficient, fair, uncorrupted (remember they sacked the woman who was brought in to find corruption because she actually did her job and tried to blow the whistle), then I don't think so many people would be against it.

Maggy
23-10-2003, 22:33
When I was originally asked to vote in the original referendum I was asked to vote to join a European Common Market.Seemed a good way to avoid wars so I agreed on the premise that those who trade together have got too much to lose in a war.
However I was never asked to vote on joining a Federated Europe despite what Tony Blair thinks.I think I would know if I had because IF that had been an option I would have told 'em to go scr*w themselves.

Two world wars not to be told what to do by Germany and now they can tell us what to do via the back door.


Incog. :afire:

downquark1
23-10-2003, 22:35
Two world wars not to be told what to do by Germany and now they can tell us what to do via the back door.

Incog. :afire:
Strange, people in germany are telling us not to join the euro ;)

Ramrod
23-10-2003, 22:37
(remember they sacked the woman who was brought in to find corruption because she actually did her job and tried to blow the whistle), then I don't think so many people would be against it.Yea, that bit really rankles, the fact that they s*rew the whistleblowers.
....and Ken Livingstone helped them to do it:2up:

dr wadd
23-10-2003, 22:51
That is true, but in a case of something like this, why not let the people decide?

And why would you like to stand up against the United States so much? Inferiority complex?

As the only super-power in the world today the USA needs someone of comparable power to keep them in check. Yes, I have my qualms about the USA in general, but this would be true of any super-power. Until we have a fully unified single world government we have to be careful about letting any one group gain too much power.

Once the Democrats get back in power I`m sure things over there will improve greatly.

dr wadd
23-10-2003, 22:58
so you think handing everything over to germany and france will help us?

That is totally not the case. It's the European Union, every member state has a say in its running, but it is a democracy so sometimes things are not going to go our way. That is true of the political system within the confines of the UK. But because "we" cannot tolerate the fact that someone might have the audacity to disagree with us it is suddenly some form of outrage.

Eventually there will be a federal Europe. The UK can either be in it or outside of it, we will be making a terrible mistake if we do not join.

philip.j.fry
23-10-2003, 23:12
Dr Wadd, I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, nice to have someone with the same viewpoint :)

As for Elizabeth Windsor trying to assert her anachronistic powers, I would like to see her try :) I know many people in this country quite like the idea of the monarchy, but I'm sure that opinion would quite rapidly change should they start interfering in the running of the country. Still, Blair isn't too popular either so it would be difficult to predict that outcome if they went head to head. Reckon we should put them in a boxing ring and let them slug it out? :D

Shaun
23-10-2003, 23:20
That is totally not the case. It's the European Union, every member state has a say in its running, but it is a democracy so sometimes things are not going to go our way. That is true of the political system within the confines of the UK. But because "we" cannot tolerate the fact that someone might have the audacity to disagree with us it is suddenly some form of outrage.

Eventually there will be a federal Europe. The UK can either be in it or outside of it, we will be making a terrible mistake if we do not join.

On this matter I whole heartedly agree Dr Wadd

Xaccers
23-10-2003, 23:22
I think if people had to vote to keep the monarchy in order to keep us out of europe they'd do it.

Maggy
23-10-2003, 23:30
Go,go Lizzie. :)

Just because the Monarch hasn't exercised her rights to the full since she was crowned doesn't mean that she has no power and no right to do so.For once I'd like a government to realise that the monarch is there not to be a figurehead but to be a counterweight to the Houses of Parliament so they cannot just push through any old rules and laws that suit them.

Just wish she could have prevented The Falklands war as well as all the other conflicts since.A pity she had to choose this issue of losing the only rights that she hasn't exercised thus far instead of an issue that would have been more popular with the people.

I don't see much democracy in government these days anyway whomever is in power.Not much to choose between any of them either.All the major parties are full of liars,sleaze merchants,money fiddlers oh and liars.

Incog.

philip.j.fry
23-10-2003, 23:43
Anyone else confused what to post about now? Should we talk about Europe or the Monarchy? Someone make a decision :)

Xaccers
23-10-2003, 23:49
Anyone else confused what to post about now? Should we talk about Europe or the Monarchy? Someone make a decision :)

Well the thread is about the Monarchy's possible reaction to the euro constitution

NtlRebelReborn
23-10-2003, 23:58
Ok. I'm not fanatical about the monarchy but IMO better to have them than not to. :erm:

Chris
24-10-2003, 00:02
That is totally not the case. It's the European Union, every member state has a say in its running, but it is a democracy so sometimes things are not going to go our way. That is true of the political system within the confines of the UK. But because "we" cannot tolerate the fact that someone might have the audacity to disagree with us it is suddenly some form of outrage.

Eventually there will be a federal Europe. The UK can either be in it or outside of it, we will be making a terrible mistake if we do not join.

This is typical of the woolly Europe-by-default argument normally advanced by the pro-Europe lobby. It simply won't wash to say that 'it'll happen anyway' and make dire but vague predictions of doom for the UK if we remain outside of it.

Some questions that might help guide a more informed debate on the subject:

1. How, exactly, will we be making a 'terrible mistake' by remaining outside a federal Europe?
2. How would our best national interests be served by joining the single currency when the three strongest economies in Europe are demonstrably those that have remained outside the Euro zone, and the two biggest economies inside the zone - namely France and Germany - are currently suffering the ignominy of grovelling to a cabal of unelected civil servants in Brussels for not keeping their national debt below a nominal figure?
3. Why, exactly, does America need an adversarial counterweight in the world? Does this mean you think the Cold War was actually a good thing?
4. Assuming that a counterweight to US power was a good thing, how do you propose that Europe perform that role, when it has demonstarted a complete inability, on numerous occasions, to agree a common course of action?
5. What, exactly, is wrong with status quo - namely a USA that is prepared to listen to, and modify its behaviour for, an international ally (namely us - make no mistake, there isn't another nation on Earth that has the ear of the White House in the way we do) ?

homealone
24-10-2003, 00:08
Go,go Lizzie. :)

Just because the Monarch hasn't exercised her rights to the full since she was crowned doesn't mean that she has no power and no right to do so.For once I'd like a government to realise that the monarch is there not to be a figurehead but to be a counterweight to the Houses of Parliament so they cannot just push through any old rules and laws that suit them.

Just wish she could have prevented The Falklands war as well as all the other conflicts since.A pity she had to choose this issue of losing the only rights that she hasn't exercised thus far instead of an issue that would have been more popular with the people.

I don't see much democracy in government these days anyway whomever is in power.Not much to choose between any of them either.All the major parties are full of liars,sleaze merchants,money fiddlers oh and liars.

Incog.

that is the longest post you have done for ages, incog.

I do agree about the lack of democracy in our government - for,with,by? - not "the people" these days? it seems?

Xaccers
24-10-2003, 00:08
The Pro euro entry shoot themselves in the foot when they say we'll be left behind if we don't join up.
Part of the treaties we have already signed state that Britain will not be left behind if it doesn't join up.
So, either the members of europe are going back on the previous treaties in which case do we really want to be with such dishonerable people, or the members are honerable in which case we don't need to join up as we won't be left behind :D

yesman
24-10-2003, 00:10
And why would you like to stand up against the United States so much? Inferiority complex?
Inferiority complex

Somehow I dont think so.......

From a personal point of view, the further we move away from the USA's influence on the rest of the world (including the UK) the better.

Apologies for being slightly off topic

Chris
24-10-2003, 00:11
The Pro euro entry shoot themselves in the foot when they say we'll be left behind if we don't join up.
Part of the treaties we have already signed state that Britain will not be left behind if it doesn't join up.
So, either the members of europe are going back on the previous treaties in which case do we really want to be with such dishonerable people, or the members are honerable in which case we don't need to join up as we won't be left behind :D

Very true, although you'd be hard-pressed to find an honourable politician in Brussels.

On the subject of the USA being ours ... it prolly still would be if it hadn't been for the French, who then rubbed it in by giving them the Statue of Liberty in honour of independence. I think the French are so anti-American now because they wanted to be big mates with the Yanks, but we got in there instead. :D

Xaccers
24-10-2003, 00:13
I don't think talking about joining/not joining US/Canada/Oz/NZ is off topic, if we aren't going to join europe, they are a viable alternative for discussion

Chris
24-10-2003, 00:19
Inferiority complex

Somehow I dont think so.......

From a personal point of view, the further we move away from the USA's influence on the rest of the world (including the UK) the better.

Apologies for being slightly off topic

Empires are simply the way of the world. At some point in the history of civilisation, there has always been a big boy in the playground throwing his weight around. If it wasn't the Persians or the Medes, it was the Romans ... and don't forget, the USA has a loooong way to go before it beats us. Just get hold of a map of the world at the turn of the last century and see how much of it was ours.

At least the modern American 'empire' is largely a cultural one. Far worse fates could have befallen us, including a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe.

As far as I can see, the motivation behind far too much of this carping on about Europe and the US is little more than knee-jerk hatred of America just 'cos they're bigger than us, coupled with some good old-fashioned post-colonial guilt.

Well, I think we need to get on with life and be pragmatic. The USA has the power, likes us and has a culture with which we are familiar and is not so distant from our own. Europe is a deluded collection of former world powers with as many national axes to grind and agendas to pursue as there are languages in your passport. It's a free-trade club with ideas way above its station and we want to keep it at arms length at all costs.

Ramrod
24-10-2003, 00:37
This is typical of the woolly Europe-by-default argument normally advanced by the pro-Europe lobby. It simply won't wash to say that 'it'll happen anyway' and make dire but vague predictions of doom for the UK if we remain outside of it.

Some questions that might help guide a more informed debate on the subject:

1. How, exactly, will we be making a 'terrible mistake' by remaining outside a federal Europe?
2. How would our best national interests be served by joining the single currency when the three strongest economies in Europe are demonstrably those that have remained outside the Euro zone, and the two biggest economies inside the zone - namely France and Germany - are currently suffering the ignominy of grovelling to a cabal of unelected civil servants in Brussels for not keeping their national debt below a nominal figure?
3. Why, exactly, does America need an adversarial counterweight in the world? Does this mean you think the Cold War was actually a good thing?
4. Assuming that a counterweight to US power was a good thing, how do you propose that Europe perform that role, when it has demonstarted a complete inability, on numerous occasions, to agree a common course of action?
5. What, exactly, is wrong with status quo - namely a USA that is prepared to listen to, and modify its behaviour for, an international ally (namely us - make no mistake, there isn't another nation on Earth that has the ear of the White House in the way we do) ?Bloody good points Towny!

dr wadd
24-10-2003, 01:27
1. How, exactly, will we be making a 'terrible mistake' by remaining outside a federal Europe?

The UK needs partners to trade with for one thing. By remaining outside we lose some of the advantages of a larger internal market. Those inside the Federal Europe will have less incentive to trade with us so we lose out on that. That then leaves the US as our main trading partner, and as we are already at a disadvantage that gives the USA to treat us as a second rate partner as well.


2. How would our best national interests be served by joining the single currency when the three strongest economies in Europe are demonstrably those that have remained outside the Euro zone, and the two biggest economies inside the zone - namely France and Germany - are currently suffering the ignominy of grovelling to a cabal of unelected civil servants in Brussels for not keeping their national debt below a nominal figure?

All economies suffer from recession at some point or another. The Euro has not been running long enough to determine whether these economic problems are a direct result or a mere coincidence.


3. Why, exactly, does America need an adversarial counterweight in the world? Does this mean you think the Cold War was actually a good thing?

Being adversarial to America doesn`t necessarily mean restarting the Cold War, and in any case, it did manage to keep the greater peace for the best part of 50 years. We need to be unified enough to challenge them and have the strength for them to realise that they aren`t the only voice in the world that can shout enough to be heard.


4. Assuming that a counterweight to US power was a good thing, how do you propose that Europe perform that role, when it has demonstarted a complete inability, on numerous occasions, to agree a common course of action?
Europe would be a single country and hence have political clout in that respect. Europe is already discussing a common defence force. We disband NATO, allow the USA to go it along and create an Army of Federal Europe to give us a comparable military strength.


5. What, exactly, is wrong with status quo - namely a USA that is prepared to listen to, and modify its behaviour for, an international ally (namely us - make no mistake, there isn't another nation on Earth that has the ear of the White House in the way we do) ?
You really think the USA listens to us? I think you'll find it is currently more a case of we having a puppet prime minister who is will to go along with whatever the USA proposes. The first time they oppose the USA, the US Government will not pay a single iota of notice. Through NATO, France and Germany are also allies of Europe, yet the US have well demonstrated that they are willing to ignore them totally when it suits their needs. Don`t expect it to be any different when the time comes that we disagree with them.

Xaccers
24-10-2003, 01:49
The UK needs partners to trade with for one thing. By remaining outside we lose some of the advantages of a larger internal market. Those inside the Federal Europe will have less incentive to trade with us so we lose out on that. That then leaves the US as our main trading partner, and as we are already at a disadvantage that gives the USA to treat us as a second rate partner as well.


The previous treaties have entries that state Britain will not be at any disadvantage for not taking on the euro etc as we are already part of the common market.
As I said, if the other members go back on the treaties then do we really want to be part of such a dishonourable group?



All economies suffer from recession at some point or another. The Euro has not been running long enough to determine whether these economic problems are a direct result or a mere coincidence.


Problem is, Britain could go into recession within the euro, and without the ability to change interest rates or borrowing we could be stuffed like germany and portugal



Europe would be a single country and hence have political clout in that respect. Europe is already discussing a common defence force. We disband NATO, allow the USA to go it along and create an Army of Federal Europe to give us a comparable military strength.


But europe isn't a single country. Germans are different to Greeks, French are different to Dutch.
The members can't even agree on a foreign policy.
A euro army would be pretty weak. NATO is nothing without the forces and backing of the US.

dr wadd
24-10-2003, 01:57
The previous treaties have entries that state Britain will not be at any disadvantage for not taking on the euro etc as we are already part of the common market.
As I said, if the other members go back on the treaties then do we really want to be part of such a dishonourable group?
But likewise it doesn`t put them any under explicit obligation to trade with us, and if it is economically advantageous for them they would not be dishnourable if they chose not to trade with us.
Problem is, Britain could go into recession within the euro, and without the ability to change interest rates or borrowing we could be stuffed like germany and portugal
This argument is only valid if you presume that they will never come out of recession, which will clearly not be the case. Freedom to set interest rates or borrowing has by example be proven not to be a simple, instance fix.
But europe isn't a single country. Germans are different to Greeks, French are different to Dutch.
And the English are different from the Welsh, who are different from the Scottish, and those in Northern Island, all have distinct cultures. Even within England different areas of the culture have distinct cultures. Is diversity such an issue? Surely you are not afraid of it? A Federal Europe would have to be a single country.
The members can't even agree on a foreign policy.
So we eliminate the veto vote and do everything on a democratic basis.
A euro army would be pretty weak. NATO is nothing without the forces and backing of the US.
Russia is in Europe. They have a fair amount of military hardware on hand. But I didn`t say we had to be as strong as NATO is now, or even still as strong as the US may be alone. I`m not proposing that we go to war with the USA.

Xaccers
24-10-2003, 02:15
But likewise it doesn`t put them any under explicit obligation to trade with us, and if it is economically advantageous for them they would not be dishnourable if they chose not to trade with us.


But with the current treaties there is no advantage with adopting the euro when it comes to trade.
The exchange rate issue is still an issue because if you sell something for â‚ ¬40 that might be cheap in one part of the euroland but very expensive in another.
This has hampered many of the spanish traders I spoke with in Gran Canaria.
The Irish I spoke to over there also commented on how expensive it had gotten since spain adopted the euro.


This argument is only valid if you presume that they will never come out of recession, which will clearly not be the case. Freedom to set interest rates or borrowing has by example be proven not to be a simple, instance fix.


No it's not. It deals totally with coming out of recession. Freedom to change interest rates and borrow extra money is one of the major tools a country can use to boost the economy. Cutting tax on the other hand (which is all that they'd be able to do) doesn't have much of an impact.


And the English are different from the Welsh, who are different from the Scottish, and those in Northern Island, all have distinct cultures. Even within England different areas of the culture have distinct cultures. Is diversity such an issue? Surely you are not afraid of it? A Federal Europe would have to be a single country.


And look at the dislike the welsh, irish and scottish have for the english.
They all want to be able to rule themselves, the opposite action to creating a single euroland.
The reason why it worked in america was because it was one people creating a new "empty" country. People in Florida are of similar backgrounds to those from Texas, they've generally got the same values.



So we eliminate the veto vote and do everything on a democratic basis.


Can you have democracy with the levels of corruption that is going on?


Russia is in Europe. They have a fair amount of military hardware on hand. But I didn`t say we had to be as strong as NATO is now, or even still as strong as the US may be alone. I`m not proposing that we go to war with the USA.

More of Russia is in Asia than Europe, and it's not part of the EU.
As for their forces, they're in shambles.
More importantly, if we did have a euro army, one of the things is we'd have to trade all intelligence, which would instantly cut us off from US intelligence (I know it's an oxymoron but it is sometimes useful).

philip.j.fry
24-10-2003, 02:35
which would instantly cut us off from US intelligence (I know it's an oxymoron but it is sometimes useful).

You can tune into that on sky tv :D

Chris
24-10-2003, 10:37
<snip snip>Great long quotes get in the way a bit so I'll try to post a general rather than a point-by-point answer.

Dr, I think you are being extremely naive in your view of Europe. You make extremely bold statements about disbanding NATO, building a comparable military strength to the USA, and setting up a single European government, yet you don't even sugest, in the most general terms, how any of this might be achieved. You seem to think that the very act of declaring a Federal Europe would be enough to end the decades of squabbling and self-interested jostling that has characterised every Euro-treaty convention since Rome. This is plainly nonsense ... outside of a hardcore elite, there is simply no appetite for a single Europe. And it is the people of Europe that would have the final veto over any such plan.

Your analogy of the home nations of the UK simply doesn't stand up. For a start, we have a common language (Welsh and Gaelic notwithstanding), a broadly common culture and an extended history as a single nation state. However there is enough ambivalence within the Union (principally from the Welsh and the Scots towards the English) that if such a thing were proposed today, democratically, it could never happen. England dominated Wales in a series of military campaigns waged in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. The union of the crowns of England and Scotland, and then of the Parliaments, were political events that initially led to a partnership of equals but inevitably led to the balance of power resting south of the border. Now consider Europe. There are about 12 languages; 15 distinct legal systems (the differences between England/Wales and France, for example, simply dwarf those that exist between England/Wales and Scotland) and several vastly different cultures (and no, I'm not xenophobic; different cultures simply lead to different expectations and assumptions about life and government).

The arguments in favour of UK Euro entry come largely from big business because it has seen a way to turn a bigger profit by eliminating currency risk. They complain about the perils of the money markets as if they were something they had not been dealing with all their lives. But then, there are plenty of those in business that do not support the Euro. I find arguments about long-term damage to our ability to manage our economy effectively to be far more persuasive. It is already possible to see the effects of a single interest rate on a large and complex economic area. Look again at the UK, and our celebrated 'north/south divide'. We are warned that interest rates may go up in two weeks to cool the retail and housebuying economy in the south; meanwhile manufacturers and traders especially in the north want lower rates. Extend this situation across an area as vast as Europe and you can see the lunacy of trying to apply the same rates in Berlin and Dublin.

You suggested that public borrowing and interest rates are not a simple or instant fix for an economy. You are right, but then nothing is an instant fix for an economy. Complex industrial economies are like supertankers; steering them is something you have to plan ahead for. And interest rates and borowing are the most effective rudder/propeller we have. Aside from mountains, and many years, of proof to the contrary, why else are France and Germany now exceeding their 3% Euro-zone borrowing limit in defiance of treaty? Because interest rates are physically out of their hands, so borrowing is the only tool they can actually employ, even though they have promised not to. They are sovreign nation states and as such ought to be able to do whatever is necessary for the good of their economies, but at the same time, the fact that they have consistently broken their Euro-stabilisation pact obligations in this area is further evidence of what a precarious thing the Euro is.

On the point of trade, the European nations have long been a major trading partner for us but to be honest I think the world economy's future health depends on liberalised global trade, not on the formation of impenetrable trading blocs which prop up inefficiencies within - the common agricultural policy, for example, a shining example of French self-interest at the heart of Europe - while denying access to others without. We had to loosen very lucrative trading links within the Commonwealth in order to develop our relationship with Europe but this, and the other 200-odd nations of Earth, are not closed to us. Of course, the Commonwealth is unpopular because it reminds us of Empire, and as I suggested in an earlier post, post-colonial guilt plays more than a small role in many folks' motivations on this issue.

Just briefly (:D) to cover off some other issues:

The cold war did not keep the general peace; it brought us to the brink of global annihilation more than once and killed hundreds if not thousands of people in wars waged by proxy in the Middle East and Asia.

India is a single country - the largest democracy on Earth - but has less clout than us. It is our historic position as a world-class nation that guarantees us a seat at the top table of world affairs. There is no reason why a Europe that continues to disagree publicly about how to handle world affairs should be treated with any respect by, for example, the USA.

And to the USA ... actually, yes, I do think we have influence. There would have been no attempt at a second resolution on Iraq without our diplomatic pressure, and that attempt failed only when the French, backed by the Germans, declared they would oppose any new resolution, regardless of what it said. There speaks the true voice of your 'single Europe'. We can either throw our lot in with a cowering, self interested, small minded club of former world powers, or we can develop our own international standing and continue to work with the most powerful nation on earth. Frankly, I will always vote for the latter.

beardsley
24-10-2003, 11:07
Lying to the general public is one thing, but lying to the Queen and trying to strip her of her powers? Isn't that treason? I also believe that is covered by the death penalty in the United Kingdom.

(High) treason has not caried the death penalty for some time now, but not a lot else is ruled out. I believe that it is up to the reigning monarch to decide a suitable punishment - Detention at her/his majesty's pleasure. I understand that the standard seems to be detention in the tower for the rest of their natural lives.

Gogogo
24-10-2003, 11:27
It seems that the "EU Constitution" that Tony Blair is pushing for strips the Queen of most of her Royals Power and perogatives and hands them over to Burssels or the "EU Prime Minister" (Read: the hopeful Tony Blair)...snip...
As such she's now consulting lawyers and a few Princes are very annoyed ...snip...Lying to the general public is one thing, but lying to the Queen and trying to strip her of her powers? Isn't that treason? I also believe that is covered by the death penalty in the United Kingdom...snip...I really don't like the agenda Tony Blair is pushing down onto the Britains. He is refusing them a referendum. I think it would be a good thing if the Queen dissolves the parliament and hold a general election. If Tony Blair did indeed lie to the Queen, he should be punished appropiately. I hope he didn't though.

Not sure where the evidence for all this is? There are several constitutional monarchies in the EU and none of them appear to be unhappy. As for the Queen dissolving parliament, well she will look pretty stupid if the result is a re-elected Labour government and Tony Blair as Prime Minister and this is very likely and even more likely in the circumstances you describe.

I think many people would not tolerate political interference from any in the Royal Family, they might find themselves moved out of Buck House, a good asylum centre, and other palaces, into a council house, on an awful council estate. On the otherhand she is very wealthy so might buy Canada for herself!


As to lying that's pretty strong language, and where is the evidence?

I'm all in favour of the European Union and the Euro and can't see what all the fuss is about.

Tony Blair is the best Prime Minister we have had for ages.

:cool:

ntluser
24-10-2003, 12:08
Not sure where the evidence for all this is? There are several constitutional monarchies in the EU and none of them appear to be unhappy. As for the Queen dissolving parliament, well she will look pretty stupid if the result is a re-elected Labour government and Tony Blair as Prime Minister and this is very likely and even more likely in the circumstances you describe.

I think many people would not tolerate political interference from any in the Royal Family, they might find themselves moved out of Buck House, a good asylum centre, and other palaces, into a council house, on an awful council estate. On the otherhand she is very wealthy so might buy Canada for herself!

As to lying that's pretty strong language, and where is the evidence?

I'm all in favour of the European Union and the Euro and can't see what all the fuss is about.

Tony Blair is the best Prime Minister we have had for ages.

:cool:


This has got to be a wind-up.

Tony Blair is trying to neutralise the Monarchy because when that's done the mantle of power falls to him.

If the Queen allows Tony Blair to continue she will definitely end up being de-throned because President Tony wants to be in charge.

Personally, I'd say that she has nothing to lose by dissolving Parliament because the support that existed when New Labour were first elected has faded away and the chances are that another party will get in.

As to the lying, you'd have to be blind not to notice all the broken promises and the sleaze that New Labour has found itself involved in. We have a bent Prime Minister leading a bent Cabinet. He actually wants to send Mandelson as a European Commissioner to a European Parliament that's even more corrupt than our own.

As for the European Union, I think we should have a relationship with Europe but before we do we need to clear up all the corruption in Brussels that wastes UK taxpayer's money. I'm not really happy either with the idea of a European Superstate to counter America. The danger is with a megalomaniac like Bush that we could end up starting World War III!

As for the Euro, there's too much evidence that we are better off without it. If we had the same high salaries and pensions as some of the better off countries in the EU then maybe, but not as things are. It doesn't make economic sense.

And finally as for Tony Blair all I can say is that if people think that he is the best Prime Minister I have to disagree. He is a champagne socialist who wants to live like the Tories he despises, while claiming to support the ordinary working person. He is a moral vacuum with no sense of honour or integrity. He is a control freak who wants to 'manage' New Labour's failures with spin and always appear to the people as whiter than white.

He wants your child to have the MMR injection but isn't keen to do the same for his own. He wants your child to go to a state school while sending his to a private one. He wants to trade on his position to get perks like free holidays, advantageous business deals (remember Cheriegate?). I could go on but it would be depressing. Nye Bevin and other real Labour politicians must be turning in their graves at the mockery Tony Blair has made of the Labour party. He has traded good socialist principles and the ordinary working person for thirty pieces of silver and the good life.

basa
24-10-2003, 12:12
Nothing to add to the great posts from towny and ntluser !! :cool:

(Sorry..I just had to say that !! Now I'll shut up again !)

downquark1
24-10-2003, 12:29
Tony Blair is the best Prime Minister we have had for ages. I have to agree with that mainly because Thatcher was reigning since the last ice age:D and Major wasn't too great.

Shaun
24-10-2003, 12:32
I'm all in favour of the European Union and the Euro and can't see what all the fuss is about.

Tony Blair is the best Prime Minister we have had for ages.

:cool:

:tu:

trebor
24-10-2003, 13:31
I have to say I am better off under this government than the last one.
Maggie gave us privatized everything, that helped the railways didn't it.
she gave us poll tax which became council tax that was popular.

some things about joining Europe have the potential to be good.
in general I think they have better wages better working hours which I would like.

I also like monarchy they are a good and effective fail safe for when the government goes mad.

it's a tricky decision but I could live without europe and would like to keep a monarch. what I would really like is for a government of elected MP's to actually
do the biding of the people that elected them.