Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why don't the British make Britain a Republic?

Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

12 Jan 2012, 7:50 am

visagrunt wrote:
While it certainly allowed Parliament to impose its will on Charles I, Charles II was restored to largely the same powers that his father held.


I would argue the change really happened with the 'Glorious Revolution', the parliament pretty much deposed the monarch at its will. The restablishment of absolute royal power by Charles II was very short lived. As to the original point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They certainly have major issues, their parliament is not really one of them.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Jan 2012, 2:48 pm

91 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
While it certainly allowed Parliament to impose its will on Charles I, Charles II was restored to largely the same powers that his father held.


I would argue the change really happened with the 'Glorious Revolution', the parliament pretty much deposed the monarch at its will. The restablishment of absolute royal power by Charles II was very short lived. As to the original point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They certainly have major issues, their parliament is not really one of them.


Let's be clear, Parliament would have been powerless to do so, had James II not abandoned the kingdoms at the end of December. Parliament did not invite William and Mary to take the throne until 1689, after James' departure. Meanwhile, James' motivation for departure was not simply Parliament's action, but William's landing at Torbay with an invading force, and popular unrest about his (and his newly born son's) Roman Catholicism.

The Glorious Revolution was only "Glorious" because James II was too feckless to exercise resistance. We like to paint it as the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, but really it's the supremacy of Parliament over a vacant throne.


_________________
--James


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

12 Jan 2012, 3:19 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
Tequila wrote:
peebo wrote:
david starkey has exposed himself on numerous occasions as being a stupid racist buffoon. so i wouldn't worry too much about what he says.


Why is he a racist? Has he just said things that the politically correct coterie don't like? Couldn't be that could it?

If you were at the receiving end of his verbal diarrhoea, I'm sure you'd agree that he was racist. I've found some of his outbursts to be highly offensive, although I have the intelligence to know he's not as smart as he and others think he is. You don't have to be involved in acts of violence to be racist.


unfortunately it is unlikely that tequila will reply to this, just as he neglected to respond to my comment on his ill conceived questions. i, however, am completely in agreement with you on mr. starkey.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Almighty_CRJ
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

12 Jan 2012, 7:47 pm

I'm surprised no person mentioned: The British really don't like politicians. Seriously the person in 10 Downing street is considered the second least competent man in the UK.

Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use.

Sounds like a dictator, true but 1 catch - The Queen didn't want this power. No vengeance, no societal hatred & no enemies. Absolute power with political apathy. A strong moral fail safe against parliament. That's a system the British would like to keep.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

12 Jan 2012, 7:49 pm

Almighty_CRJ wrote:
Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use.


It's all theoretical. The Prime Minister and the Government have all the real power.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

12 Jan 2012, 8:58 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Let's be clear, Parliament would have been powerless to do so, had James II not abandoned the kingdoms at the end of December. Parliament did not invite William and Mary to take the throne until 1689, after James' departure. Meanwhile, James' motivation for departure was not simply Parliament's action, but William's landing at Torbay with an invading force, and popular unrest about his (and his newly born son's) Roman Catholicism.

The Glorious Revolution was only "Glorious" because James II was too feckless to exercise resistance. We like to paint it as the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, but really it's the supremacy of Parliament over a vacant throne.


Well firstly, let's agree that the term 'Glorious Revolution' is a ridiculous, as a Catholic, I am hardly a supporter of it's intention. You are correct about when parliament invited William to take the throne, but you have to gloss over the fact that William refused to invade without the support of the powerful men in parliament. Any cursory reading of their correspondence will get you to the obvious conclusion that it was when lords and bishops united against James, that his fate was sealed, unless he radically compromised. He did not, he could have, but the primacy of the objection over the divine right would still have been a reality. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the monarchy lost significant power through the predcedent set by the revolution.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

12 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm

91 wrote:
Well firstly, let's agree that the term 'Glorious Revolution' is a ridiculous, as a Catholic, I am hardly a supporter of it's intention. You are correct about when parliament invited William to take the throne, but you have to gloss over the fact that William refused to invade without the support of the powerful men in parliament. Any cursory reading of their correspondence will get you to the obvious conclusion that it was when lords and bishops united against James, that his fate was sealed, unless he radically compromised. He did not, he could have, but the primacy of the objection over the divine right would still have been a reality. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the monarchy lost significant power through the predcedent set by the revolution.


Frankly, I thought it was brilliant. The people didn't want an autocratic Catholic on the throne so they booted him out and installed King William instead. A very thoughtful and liberal man, King William. If only people listened to him a bit more.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

13 Jan 2012, 2:15 am

Tequila wrote:
Almighty_CRJ wrote:
Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use.


It's all theoretical. The Prime Minister and the Government have all the real power.


out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Jan 2012, 3:25 am

peebo wrote:
out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?


If it was a serious use of power, it would be very complex and dependent on a lot of things. You can imagine that any politicians afterwards would be doing their best to have her deposed or completely neutered though.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jan 2012, 5:15 am

Tequila wrote:
peebo wrote:
out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?


If it was a serious use of power, it would be very complex and dependent on a lot of things. You can imagine that any politicians afterwards would be doing their best to have her deposed or completely neutered though.


Think of what happened to Charles I.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

13 Jan 2012, 11:39 am

peebo wrote:
out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?


The Courts wouldn't wear it.

More importantly, she couldn't afford it. It is well established that the Crown cannot appropriate money through taxation nor spend money from the Treasury without the advice and consent of Parliament. That was the law at the time of Charles I, when he attempted to finance government by avoiding Parliament's power over taxation.

But, if one her Prime Ministers attempted to act unconstitutionally, she has the ability to dismiss that Prime Minister in an instant. We last saw that power brought to bear by the Crown (in this case the Governor General) in Australia in 1975. While it cause a constitutional uproar at the time, Australia, her government and the Crown all survived.


_________________
--James


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

13 Jan 2012, 5:24 pm

peebo wrote:
Tequila wrote:
peebo wrote:
david starkey has exposed himself on numerous occasions as being a stupid racist buffoon. so i wouldn't worry too much about what he says.


Why is he a racist? Has he just said things that the politically correct coterie don't like? Couldn't be that could it?


perhaps the fact that his opinion as stated on newsnight was that the recent riots occurred because "the whites have become black"?

the fact that he believes that to be an archetypically successful black man involves adopting mannerisms of speech that, were we to hear and not see the person, we would "think he was white"? i.e. for a black person to become respectable and "civilised" he or she should be adopt the cultural trappings of a white person?

he equates white culture with good, and black culture with bad. this is blatantly clear if you watch the recent newsnight appearance.

so overall, he is indeed a stupid racist buffoon.


Quote:
Big difference between that and hurling abuse at people in the street but, then again, a lot of people have stopped listening altogether when people start hurling accusations of 'racism' about the place. Yup, Starkers is definitely self-important and pompous but racist? I doubt it; I really do. Tell me how many bricks he's thrown through the window of the local Chinky?


racism, i'm afraid, doesn't simply consist of violence and threatening language towards those of a different race. starkey is quite clearly racist. he believes that for a black person to be successful, indeed, in his own words, an "archetypically successful black man" need adopt the mannerisms and characteristics of speech of a white man. this is quite clearly racist, i'd say.

also, "chinky" is quite a racist term. were afro-caribbean food popular in this country, would you be comfortable making reference in casual conversation to nipping out to pick up a "n****r"? i think perhaps not.


hi tequila, feel inclined to replying to this yet?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

13 Jan 2012, 5:27 pm

visagrunt wrote:
peebo wrote:
out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?


The Courts wouldn't wear it.

More importantly, she couldn't afford it. It is well established that the Crown cannot appropriate money through taxation nor spend money from the Treasury without the advice and consent of Parliament. That was the law at the time of Charles I, when he attempted to finance government by avoiding Parliament's power over taxation.

But, if one her Prime Ministers attempted to act unconstitutionally, she has the ability to dismiss that Prime Minister in an instant. We last saw that power brought to bear by the Crown (in this case the Governor General) in Australia in 1975. While it cause a constitutional uproar at the time, Australia, her government and the Crown all survived.


well the later surely is evidence of her exercising her powers, although obviously driven by parliament. i would think it would be far more complicated were anything similar to happen on home territory, though.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Jan 2012, 6:55 pm

If you want to see what happens when someone exercises their reserve powers look no further than the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis.

In Australia the Governor-General (GG) has a great deal of power, that the people usually assume, they will never use. The GG is the Queen's representative and exercises most of her authority. So in 1975 the GG actually used his power, threw out the government and handed power to the opposition. It was a huge moment, an unelected GG putting into place an unelected opposition. You would naturally expect the public to be pretty annoyed, but they weren't. The Australian public, when they had the chance, voted the opposition into power in their own right and the power of the GG remains in place. The key factor was that the average Aussie wanted the government out, so the GG never got his head chopped off in the vein of Charles I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Austr ... nal_crisis


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Jan 2012, 8:02 am

peebo wrote:
hi tequila, feel inclined to replying to this yet?


Sure.

I think what David Starkey meant was that young white people from that area had picked up a particular kind of black culture and a malformed way of speaking that I consider regressive and often difficult to understand. I don't think he was racist because I don't think there is a link there with black people who become successful - they don't adopt "white" mannerisms (as some bigoted black people with sour grapes would have it), they simply become professional people much like anyone else would. They drop the accent, put on a nice set of clothes and so on. Just like white people or indeed people of any other creed or colour. Just ask the black autistics on WP who have said - more than once - that they are sick and fed up of the limiting nature of the "black" culture they live in.

So no, again, I don't believe he is racist. I think he was referring to a certain culture within black society (that is very controversial even amongst blacks as far as I can tell) rather than all or even most black people.

Also, see a video clip of this lady giving out to the looters that went viral:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCS7c__OSBw[/youtube]



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,108
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Jan 2012, 8:05 am

As if Britain's monarchy is a real monarchy.

It just exists for the lifestyle/entertainment magazines there.