FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - The Queen says NO !!!!
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:26 pm  
El Barbudo wrote:
Ah, right, so the fact that a power is seldom used is a reason for its perpetuation

Do you think so? really? I would disagree.

El Barbudo wrote:
Besides, the fact that Charles is regularly sticking his oar in ... and affecting statute in the process ... is utterly undemocratic.

No, he is sticking his oar in as he owns the independent country that is the Duchy of Cornwall.

El Barbudo wrote:
We are constantly fed the lies that the monarchy is largely ceremonial when, in actuality, it serves to maintain the establishment via the Order of the garter, the House of Lords, the honours system and the distribution of awards of grace and favour.

Who constantly feeds you these lies then? I don't remember a single person ever feeding me this lie during my life to date. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Don't you find it an irritant when people are constantly telling you "the monarchy is largely ceremonial"? It would pisz me off, I can tell you. It's an odd thing, though. Why are they picking on you like that?

The monarchy is far from ceremonial. We have a monarch. At the moment, a Queen. This is factual.

The establishment is the establishment but I doubt whether in any major sense it needs the monarch. Those people who form the establishment are not, in the overwhelming majority, royals.

The honours system is of course pretty much entirely the province of politicians. It is hardly realistic to lay any criticism of it at the feet of the monarch, who simply hands out the gongs.

The House of Lords is, like the monarchy, a fundamental part of the constitutional setup of this country. The monarchy does nothing, at all, to serve to maintain it. Unless Parliament votes to abolish the HoL then it will remain.

El Barbudo wrote:
Nothing knee- jerk about it, the self-interested forelock-tuggers stand between the populace and decent democracy.

You have got to be joking. What stands between the populace and decent democracy is a lot of things, but (for just one example) international conglomerates including the banks are a million times more relevant to that point than the monarchy. Unless you think the queen runs all of them. I think the implication that if you abolished the monarchy this would restore decent democracy to the populace is breathtakingly naive. It would have no such effect at all.
Ovavoo 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman1455
JoinedServiceReputation
Apr 07 200223 years313th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
16th Nov 24 16:1316th Nov 24 16:08LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Jamie Jones-Buchanan

"I'd never forgive myself if a child of mine was born in Lancashire"

And neither would any Lancastrian.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:16 pm  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
All very funny for knee-jerk anti-monarchists, but as in reality we are told in the article itself that on no occasion has a veto been used "unless advised to do so by ministers" there seems to be no story here.


Why on earth would a minister need to advise the queen to use her powerless veto???

Couldn't possibly be that the queens advisor, after advise from the queen, advises the minister to to advise the queen to veto something she doesn't like, could it??
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:45 am  
Ovavoo wrote:
Why on earth would a minister need to advise the queen to use her powerless veto???


Because it would be of little apparent use on other planets?

But seriously, if you can't work that out by yourself, then I can't help you.

Ovavoo wrote:
Couldn't possibly be that the queens advisor, after advise from the queen, advises the minister to to advise the queen to veto something she doesn't like, could it??

It could be the tooth fairy too, but there are no grounds to think so.
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1305No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 15 200519 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
19th May 18 19:5328th Sep 17 18:35LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Somewhere in the dust of time rest the bones of the Galilean
He who was spat upon. He whose face was marred beyond all human likeness
Somewhere buried among the lies of the past rests the tomb of Yeshua
Of he who was made God in a world without Hope.
And when this son of Joseph is found. What then will the Church of Rome say?
Prepare yourself for the day is coming. And men will say
"Blessed are the wasted lives who perished in the flames of the holy war"

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:37 am  
Durham Giant wrote:
Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills


That bill was raised from the back benches in protest at Tony Blair going to war with Iraq without the consent of Parliament. The Queen almost certainly only vetoed it at the behest of the Government as it would have been quite embarassing for Tony Blair had it passed.
Durham Giant wrote:
Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills


That bill was raised from the back benches in protest at Tony Blair going to war with Iraq without the consent of Parliament. The Queen almost certainly only vetoed it at the behest of the Government as it would have been quite embarassing for Tony Blair had it passed.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels14522No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 26 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
30th Jan 14 14:039th Jan 14 11:22LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Online
Signature
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice.
Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:46 am  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
...
You have got to be joking. What stands between the populace and decent democracy is a lot of things, but (for just one example) international conglomerates including the banks are a million times more relevant to that point than the monarchy. Unless you think the queen runs all of them. I think the implication that if you abolished the monarchy this would restore decent democracy to the populace is breathtakingly naive. It would have no such effect at all.

Actually I would agree that there are many obstacles to democracy, to suggest that I think the Queen runs them all is just reductio ad absurdum.
This thread is about the powers of the monarchy so I was commenting on that.

Your post seems to veer from saying that the monarchy is not just ceremonial to saying that it is impotent.
Both cannot be true at the same time.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:48 am  
El Barbudo wrote:
Actually I would agree that there are many obstacles to democracy, to suggest that I think the Queen runs them all is just reductio ad absurdum.

It would indeed. Which is probably why nobody has suggested it.

El Barbudo wrote:
Your post seems to veer from saying that the monarchy is not just ceremonial to saying that it is impotent.
Both cannot be true at the same time.

You seem to be confused. The monarchy, far from being impotent, has to sign off every single piece of legislation otherwise it does not become law. That is hardly ceremonial, and pretty much well towards the opposite end of the scale of impotence.

I would agree that there's a tendency amongst some monarchists to understate the constitutional powers of the monarchy, but to make the claim that the queen's just there for the tourists doesn't actually make it true. In a similar vein, they don't publicise that Charlie owns Cornwall, personally, (well, the prince of Wales does) rather than it being a part of the UK. You could say that they let people think (insomuch as they consider it at all) that the "Duchy of Cornwall" is largely a purely ceremonial title nowadays (albeit somehow a source of considerable dosh for Charles, which is never quite explained, and nobody ask, "Why the feck is that then?") but that doesn't make it true.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels14522No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 26 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
30th Jan 14 14:039th Jan 14 11:22LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Online
Signature
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice.
Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:00 am  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
You seem to be confused. The monarchy, far from being impotent, has to sign off every single piece of legislation otherwise it does not become law. That is hardly ceremonial, and pretty much well towards the opposite end of the scale of impotence.

I would agree that there's a tendency amongst some monarchists to understate the constitutional powers of the monarchy, but to make the claim that the queen's just there for the tourists doesn't actually make it true. In a similar vein, they don't publicise that Charlie owns Cornwall, personally, (well, the prince of Wales does) rather than it being a part of the UK. You could say that they let people think (insomuch as they consider it at all) that the "Duchy of Cornwall" is largely a purely ceremonial title nowadays (albeit somehow a source of considerable dosh for Charles, which is never quite explained, and nobody ask, "Why the feck is that then?") but that doesn't make it true.

I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:28 am  
El Barbudo wrote:
I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic.


All of what is?

I would suggest you consider the difference between un-democratic and anti- or pro-democratic.

I would certainly argue that the constitutional monarchy that we have promotes and sustains the democratic process because there is a power other than that of democracy with democracy. The question would be whether that power lessens or improves democracy. While our democracy is hardly perfect, it is a democracy and has fared infinitely better than countries where the monarchy was abolished. Do these tend to end up as dictatorships as a consequence, or by accident? I don't know, it's a very complicated issue to which there can't be a definitive answer. But I would say I believe it is a consequence, at least in large part.

Interestingly, I note that according to official figures 6 or 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world in categories such as quality of life, Human Development index etc happen to be constitutional monarchies. It could be a fluke, but I don't believe it is.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/default.html

Obviously a monarch who can veto legislation is, objectively, undemocratic but the question is, does having that system promote our democracy, or detract from it? By acting as a check in that way, in my opinion it promotes it.
You may disagree but that's the argument.

For me, I'd rather have Brenda in that role than instead yet another self-serving, corrupt politician or stooge, being inevitably from the upper echelons of some vested interest or other, backed by big money, dancing to their tune. We'd probably end up with somebody like Bliar.
El Barbudo wrote:
I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic.


All of what is?

I would suggest you consider the difference between un-democratic and anti- or pro-democratic.

I would certainly argue that the constitutional monarchy that we have promotes and sustains the democratic process because there is a power other than that of democracy with democracy. The question would be whether that power lessens or improves democracy. While our democracy is hardly perfect, it is a democracy and has fared infinitely better than countries where the monarchy was abolished. Do these tend to end up as dictatorships as a consequence, or by accident? I don't know, it's a very complicated issue to which there can't be a definitive answer. But I would say I believe it is a consequence, at least in large part.

Interestingly, I note that according to official figures 6 or 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world in categories such as quality of life, Human Development index etc happen to be constitutional monarchies. It could be a fluke, but I don't believe it is.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/default.html

Obviously a monarch who can veto legislation is, objectively, undemocratic but the question is, does having that system promote our democracy, or detract from it? By acting as a check in that way, in my opinion it promotes it.
You may disagree but that's the argument.

For me, I'd rather have Brenda in that role than instead yet another self-serving, corrupt politician or stooge, being inevitably from the upper echelons of some vested interest or other, backed by big money, dancing to their tune. We'd probably end up with somebody like Bliar.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach8991
JoinedServiceReputation
Sep 26 200915 years312th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Sep 24 02:301st Jun 24 16:17LINK
Milestone Posts
5000
10000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leeds
Signature
We can be bold enough to make a stand and do battle for our views and beliefs. But we must strive to be mature enough not to resort to unnecessary personal attacks upon people with opposing views.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:47 am  
Just sounds like a way for government to veto stuff they don't like on the quiet, or to do a U-turn without it looking like a U-turn.

I'm no royalist, but the way the article slips the significant information in after most of the article is written just shows that they think most people will only read the headlines or the first paragraph and then just take the rest of the story as confirmation of the headline.

When actually it's never been used unless told by the government ministers that it needs to be used.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman37704No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 25 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
7th Aug 18 19:077th Aug 18 19:06LINK
Milestone Posts
30000
40000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Signature
The older I get, the better I was

Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't

I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."

cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:53 am  
Interesting article in today's Mirror from John Prescott on the injustices suffered by the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands

After being forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in a foreign country. After years of campaigning and winning court battles, they were finally allowed by Robin Cook to return to the outer islands (Diego Garcia was still off limits), only for that decision to be reversed by Royal Prerogative.
Interesting article in today's Mirror from John Prescott on the injustices suffered by the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands

After being forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in a foreign country. After years of campaigning and winning court battles, they were finally allowed by Robin Cook to return to the outer islands (Diego Garcia was still off limits), only for that decision to be reversed by Royal Prerogative.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 251 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
5m
Film game
karetaker
6076
9m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
The Dentist
4088
21m
Accounts
faxcar
188
57m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
UllFC
30
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63336
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40870
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
52s
Accounts
faxcar
188
57s
Recruitment rumours and links
Wires71
3564
2m
IMG scores
PopTart
289
3m
2025 Recruitment
Pyrah123
261
3m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63336
4m
Shirt reveal coming soon
KevW60349
71
5m
Sports Personality of the Year
Wires71
13
8m
2025 Squad
RobRiches
2
9m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
chapylad
2655
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Christmas Party Night B Vue tonight cancelled
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Doug Laughton
ArthurClues
11
TODAY
Sports Personality of the Year
Wires71
13
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
TonyM19
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
6
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
5m
Film game
karetaker
6076
9m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
The Dentist
4088
21m
Accounts
faxcar
188
57m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
UllFC
30
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63336
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40870
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
52s
Accounts
faxcar
188
57s
Recruitment rumours and links
Wires71
3564
2m
IMG scores
PopTart
289
3m
2025 Recruitment
Pyrah123
261
3m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63336
4m
Shirt reveal coming soon
KevW60349
71
5m
Sports Personality of the Year
Wires71
13
8m
2025 Squad
RobRiches
2
9m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
chapylad
2655
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Christmas Party Night B Vue tonight cancelled
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Doug Laughton
ArthurClues
11
TODAY
Sports Personality of the Year
Wires71
13
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
MjM
3
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
TonyM19
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Zig
8
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
6
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!