Forum menu
[i]My link to John Key's statement seems pretty relevant to jambalaya's post all told...[/i]
Not really, a random politician (Jam's tenuous memory aside) having the view that spying agencies should, well...spy on people is not news. Neither is (in this day and age post Snowden and Wiki-leaks) a PM denying that it goes on despite most people's (who bother to inform themselves about these things) realisation that spying agencies are in fact, well...spying on us...
Not News (Well known self interested groups making sure it isn't), more than a bit shitty. But, sadly, not news.
Cool, so give us some news then...
If you can't think of anything relevant, I'd appreciate help trying to get to the bottom of this:
Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?
a/ It depends what you mean by authority. How many can she send to war? 0.
Can you justify your answer please Northwind?
also:
How many can she prevent from going to war?
and then we still have the small issue of the intelligence services...
[i]Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?[/i]
In principle? (as head of state, eventually some-one has to sign these bloody documents, and it isn't going to be me, said every politician ever) or actively? (as bond style villain directing the lives of bored conspiracy theorists 😉 )
Let's go with a sprinkle of both in principle and in terms of executive power:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.htmlThe Queen also vetoed entirely a private member's Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament
It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.
However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.
Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a "fight to to keep this quiet" showed the significance of the Whitehall document.
"It's quite concerning there is wider influence, and secretive influence, of the monarchy in these things than had previously been revealed," he told The Huffington Post UK.
And he said he was particularly concerned about the revelation the Queen had fought to keep parliament from gaining the power to authorise, or block, military action.
"The power to go to war is an incredibly important thing," he said. "It's important to bring the country on side and to do things in a clear way and leave the choice up to parliament.
From Big Dummy's answer on page 2
[i]From your link:
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.
So when a private member's bill was put forward preventing the Prime Minster from declaring war without parliamentary approval, on the Queen's account, she was asked to veto the legislation by the Prime Minister.
Admittedly, it was shabby of the government to get the bill stopped without publicly whipping a vote against it, but that's about as deep as the roots of the conspiracy go.[/i]
You're going around in circles chap...
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said
😉
[i]The CCTV cameras
There were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont d'Alma underpass, yet none have recorded footage of the fatal collision.
[b]Sources[/b] have claimed that they were turned to face the wall, or were simply switched off. The official French judicial enquiry into the crash was told that none of the cameras were working.[/i]
Sauce for the goose... etc etc 😉
Just a quick look to see how the conspiracy is going - and I'm wondering JHJ - what do you do all day ? Apart from keeping us up to date on, well I'm not sure what ???
jive your question has been answered with explanations .. The answer is 0.
crankboy - Member
Is the Governor General of Australia acting on the written advise of the Australian high court really the Queen though rather than simply the guardian of the Australian constitution...
I am not qualified to comment on the legality of it, but I was a public servant in Oz at the time, and it was made very clear to those of us (public servants) objecting to this that our oath of allegiance was directly to the Queen and it was our paramount loyalty, and it would be taken very seriously if we breached it, ie possible treason charges.
I believe the same may have been said to our military.
One day we thought we were a democracy, the next the Establishment flexed its muscles and we learned different.
Democracy under the Westminster system is an illusion IMO. How much power the Queen actually wields, I do not know, but it is in her name.
jive your question has been answered with explanations .. The answer is 0.
I can't see any sufficient explanation, especially in light of the [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html ]secrecy surrounding the Royal Family[/url] and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills ]their guarded response to revealing the extent of their power[/url]:
"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate."It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."
What's more, also bear in mind that is only in relation to the UK, rather than the several other countries and territories that come under the Queen's authority...
Good post Epicyclo...
seems the UK were on the brink of a security services coup of Harold Wilson's government at one point:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm
On a related note, many accounts state that it was Louis Mountbatten who first introduced Prince Charles to Jimmy Savile...
Question: If the Windsors have all this power that you say they have, why do they work so hard at staying popular with the general public?
Because if you want people to believe in democracy, you can't appear to be too authoritarian...
[img] 
[/img]
Don't get me wrong, compared to many countries in the world, we have it very good, but not so sure about those on the receiving end of the aforementioned armies...
So let's see - every four years or so, we have an election to put in a different set of politicos if we want a different set of policies. These are not influenced by the Queen, who merely reads them out at a set-piece ceremony once a year during the tenure of whichever government has been put in place by a popular vote.
And you think that all this is an elaborate theatrical performance to obscure an authoritarian Monarchical System and no-one who works in the regular media who keeps an eye on this stuff has noticed it. Not even the Grauniad.
I think you're either an obsessive compulsive disorderist or an incredibly elaborate troll (motivated by the same disorder), or a complete dimwit.
No offense.
So who holds power regardless of those elections?
How many Prime Ministers have there been since 1953?
How many Monarchs?
The government holds power through the elections results, dummy. As has already been explained to you. Several times.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Government_%28term%29 ]Who's government?[/url]
The term is employed in order to signify that the government of a Commonwealth realm or,[3] less commonly, a division thereof, belongs to the reigning sovereign, and not to the cabinet or prime minister
Perhaps you are having trouble getting your head around the democratic principle of temporary power. In the USA, where there is no "Monarch" but where the democratic principle of government by election also holds, conspiracy theorists just make up a substitute, like poor old David Icke and his invisible lizards.
Aye, whatever...
seems the UK were on the brink of a security services coup of Harold Wilson's government at one point:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm
On a related note, many accounts state that it was Louis Mountbatten who first introduced Prince Charles to Jimmy Savile...
You DO know that all property income held by the "Royal" Family goes to the exchequer, don't you? It's [b]nominally[/b] theirs, but in fact supplies the exchequer ot the level of the elected government. In the same way, the Commonwealth countries only [b]nominally[/b] "belong" to the Crown.
The security services are there to maintain the status quo, that is to say - the elected government figure-headed by the Queen. It was thought at the time that Wilson was a dangerous left-winger who wanted to upset the established relationship as I have described it.
The Queen holds no constitutional authority in this arrangement.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchequer ]The Exchequer became unnecessary as a revenue collecting department as a result of William Pitt's reforms. It was abolished in 1834.[/url]
Very well, "Treasury", if you prefer, but the Chancellor is still the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" by title.
So, by your way of thinking, as this is his title, the "exchequer" must still exist. But in secret, no?
The security services are there to maintain the status quo, that is to say - the elected government figure-headed by the Queen.
So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who's behalf were the security services acting?
The constitution - that is to say, the arrangement which defines how the country runs itself, of which the Queen is a figurehead only.
Do you mean the constitution of [b]Her Majesty's Government[/b]?
What part of the word "nominally" is it that you don't understand?
Jive a cut and paste from the line below your cut and paste.
"By extension, "exchequer" has come to mean the Treasury and, colloquially, pecuniary possessions in general; as in "the company's exchequer is low"."
So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who's behalf were the security services acting?
The constitution
So are you telling me a piece of paper told them to do it without any input from any person?
"Do you mean the constitution of Her Majesty's Government? "
the constitution is the constitution of the country it really is quite simple especially if you read a book instead of pretending to try and enquire by means of loaded question. The Queen plays a role within the constitution she is not and does not dictate the constitution which explains why we have historically been able to swop our Royalty for others at will and why we now have a German family as our Royalty.
"So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who's behalf were the security services acting? "
well they weren't cos it did not happen but if it was planned and I believe it was they were probably acting on their own initiative with a degree of us support in what they believed was "the best interests " of the country . If the Royal family were involved and it makes more sense not to have involved them it would have been more consistent for them to have been informed and given tasset approval rather than for them to have been leaders.
So are you telling me a piece of paper told them to do it without any input from any person?
No. Unlike the Americans, we do not have a written constitution. As I already explained, our constitution is just the way the elected political structure and the estates that it serves, operates - insured by a figurehead who has no "constitutional" power - that is, the Queen.
Oh, right, so you do mean the constitution of [b]Her Majesty's Government[/b]...
LOL
Jivey, if the Queen has the power you claim she does...
Then why didn't she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him? Why the need for all the secret plans, and security service involvement, and then it didn't happen anyway.
She rings him up and says, "Hi Harold, it's Liz.... You're fired, leave your security pass at reception. Thanks."
Your
Theories
Make
No
Sense
You
Muppet
jivehoneyjive - Member
Oh, right, so you do mean the constitution of Her Majesty's Government...
Edit: No. I mean the constitution of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Northern Irish part of the "constitution", for instance, has changed comparitively recently with the advent of the "power sharing" agreement. Reported and accounted for. The "constitution" is a set of circumstances and relationships that changes over time, rather than being a set of objectives or standards set down on paper.
In which the Queen holds no power of authority.
@eipc glad to hear it. Being at an Ashes test match and drinking too much beer before singing "God Save your Queen" to the Aussies is an excellent way to pass an afternoon.
Jivey, if the Queen has the power you claim she does...Then why didn't she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him? Why the need for all the secret plans, and security service involvement, and then it didn't happen anyway.
Easy... if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~
Let's say you're a Queen neal...
You don't really want 64 million people (in the UK, then there's also Her Majesty's governments in the other Commonwealth Realms etc) cottoning on to the fact that you're on the blag and that whoever they vote in, despite making some concessions to keep the majority sufficiently content to prevent rebellion, you will pursue agendas far beyond the democratic process.
Easy... if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~
Ok. Let's pretend that's true for a second (it isn't)
You claim she has ultimate power over things. (she doesn't)
But you've now claimed she is totally unable to use it.
So the reality either way, is that she has no real power.
So..... What was your point again ?
She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge
Be a gem and answer this could you...
The security services are there to maintain the status quo, that is to say - the elected government figure-headed by the Queen.
So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who's behalf were the security services acting?
She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge
Prove it.
(Your not doing very well so far)
Be a gem and answer this could you...
Explain why ?
I didn't say either of those quotes, so why am I being asked to justify them
Feel free to ask me to justify something I have said and I'll happily oblige.
I reckon 4 pages into a topic suggests otherwise...
I'll give you this cut and paste the once, but you're going to have to stop being lazy and do some reading:
Who holds power regardless of elections?
How many Prime Ministers have there been since 1953?
How many Monarchs?
Oops, I see you've edited... if you don't want to converse, then perhaps you should leave this topic for those who are glad for their theories to be put to the test...