Forum menu
jivehoneyjive - Member
There's always a lot of criticism floating about, but never much solid basis for that criticism...
[img]
[/img]
It is a hilarious quote that isn't it 🙂
The detachment from reality seems to be complete.
The detachment from reality seems to be complete.
That's a very astute observation covering anyone under the belief that the monarch is devoid of authority...
Top class debating tactic there. The equivalent of...
[img] 
[/img]
You must win arguments all the time *swoon*
Oh no, I fear we may have a love triangle situation brewing between you, I and Junky neal...
Yup.
Detachment from reality complete.
I was just wondering if jhj ever worries about people standing too close to him (?) because he's afraid they might be trying to listen to his thoughts...
As the Queen has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, what do they discuss?
You jhj
And how the pedophile rings are getting on. Obviously.
I thought it was probably just what biscuits the cabinet wanted...
Tbh, it's government. You know the old bored not sure what you should be doing? Book a meeting, off site even better some peace and quiet in the car, they make the tea, Maybe drop the kids off at the pool in Buck palace.
If I was pm it's what I would be doing.
As the Queen has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, what do they discuss?
So that's evidence of what, exactly?
So, errm, what is actually going on in this thread?
We're getting to the bottom of it. With JHJ's help.
There's some aliens outside who want to get to jhj's bottom.
The bottom of what?
A firkin?
What the queen is up to.
I want to know what jhj does when he's not pontificating on the great issues of the day. Does he have a job? Do his colleagues suspect that he and only he alone can see the reality of this world?
I posed that question about 5 pages back !
International man of mystery ain't I...
Obviously, that's Flashearts job.
The paper clip salesman thing is just a cover story.
TooTall - MemberI want to know what jhj does when he's not pontificating on the great issues of the day.
I'm becoming increasingly sure that he's Jim Murphy
As the Queen has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, what do they discuss?
This footage just in:
jivehoneyjive - Member
The detachment from reality seems to be complete.
That's a very astute observation covering anyone under the belief that the monarch is devoid of authority...
I'm pretty sure that nobody assumes that Her Maj has no authority, we just don't believe that she's head of some massive conspiracy like you're obsessed with.
Hmm, odd that there's been all this OTT bickering in that case, I was hoping someone would have the expertise to answer the simple questions posed:
a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?
b) Does this mean that Tony Blair isn't the only one to blame for the Iraq War?
It's not like I was asking if the Queen is a space lizard who bums kids...
Sometimes people seem to get a bit excitable and blow things out of proportion...
I mean, surely these[url= http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/20/279219/canada-aboriginal-killings-cover-up/ ] allegations of the Queen taking kids from a residential school in Kamloops in Canada[/url] can't be true?
(a) none
(b) yes
/End of thread
I don't think you're qualified to provide those answers scotroutes... 😆
Answers
1: in the sense that she can start a war: none
2: Yes, but George Bush is even more culpable.
Now you can get on with the rest of your life.
Can a Prime Minister start a war without the Queens approval?
That's a third question.
This is an open forum, as the meanderings throughout the pages of this topic have amply demonstrated...
I'd say it's pretty relevant
I think what most people have taken is that jhj uses conspiracy theories as a religious belief system. Evidenced by his inability to broach any discussion regarding this framework, and his calling into question the intelligence of anyone who does not agree with him.
I am not worried that he thinks he sees the deeper truth that the rest of us can't see, most religious fanatics tend to have the same belief!
Can a Prime Minister start a war without the Queens approval?
No, but she will invariably give it if he asks, so for practical purposes, yes.
Sometimes people seem to get a bit excitable and blow things out of proportion...
and then, straight away....
allegations of [u][b]the Queen taking kids[/b] [/u]from a residential school
Laughable. Well, at least it would be if it wasn't so desperately sad.
Go and read a book. A proper, intriguing work of fiction. Perhaps go and look at some lovely art (FWIW, I could stare at the majority of works by Turner or Stubbs for days on end). Perhaps catch a good film, Groundhog Day might seem apt and amusing. Hell, just go and look at the landscapes around you.
JUST DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN FILLING YOUR LIFE WITH ALL THIS DRIVEL.
Please?
Oh, and MoreCashThanDash....
Shhh. Keep it quiet, would you?
*Tips fedora*
Thanks for the running commentary phil, very insightful*.
*The religious fervour that phil applies to trying to apply parallels between belief in a predefined invisible space ghost and analysis of a somewhat confusing constitution (and some events carried out under the auspices of that constitution) is in itself a touch worrying~ almost obsessive.
'analysis' 😯
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]I don't think you're qualified to provide those answers scotroutes... So who, on this forum, [i]is[/i] qualified to do so? Several folk have responded in various levels of detail but you've been unwilling to take in what they've said. Perhaps you really need to take your question somewhere more authoritative rather than repeatedly looking for the answer here.
JHJ i know some folk are taking the piss but your retorts are neither funny nor insightful
When folk do answer - like scotsroutes did look how you respond.
Its little wonder all folk , increasingly, do is point, mock and laugh
Can a Prime Minister start a war without the Queens approval?
[b] Technically No[/b]
but there have been no wars since WW2 and yet we have sent the troops in repeatedly without the crown signing anything. So the answer is a war can only be declared by the crown yet the PM can order the troops in where they see fit but it wont technically be a war only a conflict. Also NB say MATO accords where we have a one attacked all attacked we can declare "war" [ respond] automatically
I emboldened the only bit you want to read to help you avert your gaze from other facts as its a bit complicated
IMHO its unlikely that if the Crown refused parliament would go oh fair enough then and they would still send in troops anyway and likely lead o a constitutional crisis that only parliament can win [ see when they last lost to a monarch for example]
analysis
Could be worse....
Thanks scotroutes... you've just inspired me to do a simple google search (why I didn't think of it before I don't know)
So who has[url= http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/julie-bishop-correct-on-australia-history-at-war/5710696 ] the authority to send Australian troops to war[/url]:
Australia's constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General.It is generally accepted that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, comprised of all ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
This applies to decision making "for the execution and maintenance" of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, otherwise known as the "executive power" provision.
The extent to which the executive government can legally exercise its powers independent of Parliament continues to be the subject of significant debate.
who has[url= http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0006-e.htm ] the authority to send Canadian troops to war[/url]:
Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.
Can't easily find anything quite as definitive regarding [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand#The_Crown_and_the_New_Zealand_Defence_Force ]New Zealand[/url]:
The Crown also sits at the pinnacle of the New Zealand Defence Force. The governor-general is Commander-in-Chief and under the Defence Act 1990 is authorised to "raise and maintain armed forces",[39] consisting of the New Zealand Army, Royal New Zealand Navy, and Royal New Zealand Air Force. The sovereign's position as Head of the Armed Forces [40] is reflected in New Zealand's naval vessels bearing the prefix Her Majesty's New Zealand Ship (His Majesty's New Zealand Ship in the reign of a male monarch), and in the requirement that all members of the armed forces swear their allegiance to the sovereign and his or her heirs and successors.[41] The Governor-General commissions officers to command the forces;[33] Saluting of these individuals by soldiers is, besides a sign of personal respect, an indirect salute to the monarch and her authority.
Apologies for being a smartarse, that wasn't my intention, but it seems I may have been on the money from the get go...
See, if you'd only googled it to begin with you'd have got an answer you were happy with and wouldn't have had to wade through all these responses.
Maybe use that tactic in future?
In most cases, the decision to deploy Australian troops overseas has been bipartisan.No parliament has ever been given the opportunity to debate Australia's active role in a foreign conflict before the Prime Minister of the day has made a decision about committing to military engagement.
Since Federation in 1901, and for all conflicts since World War I, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have made all decisions about deploying troops.
Australia's constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General. It is generally accepted that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, comprised of all ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor?General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
So actually reading and checking things out the Governor general holds the final power. In reality (it's the real world we live in) the Government of the day have the power to do what they want - for instance sending troops to combat ISIS recently done on the say so of the PM.
If you are looking hard for technicalities and phrasing that you can use to make a point make sure you quote the whole thing otherwise it will just come back to you finding quotes to back up your idea.
If the Queen called up Oz and said invade Poland/NZ/Wales then about 24hrs later there would be a republic.
Your first link
Australia's constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General. It is generally accepted that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, comprised of all ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
It also says this
After the United Nations was formed in 1945, it became illegal under international law for one country to officially declare war on another without UN approval (subject to some exceptions).
It then lists lots of example of Australia doing as it please in wars such as korea and Vietnam
Now if this was not bad enough lets look at the question and then the conclusion
In most cases, the decision to deploy Australian troops overseas has been bipartisan.No parliament has ever been given the opportunity to debate Australia's active role in a foreign conflict before the Prime Minister of the day has made a decision about committing to military engagement.
Since Federation in 1901, and for all conflicts since World War I, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have made all decisions about deploying troops.
Ms Bishop is correct.
why is not saying NO the queen decides?
Canada
As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.
Your link FFS it clearly says that the elected leaders of Canada DO THIS
WTF do you think exercised in her name means ? She decides or they decide ?
the new zealand
Can't easily find anything quite as definitive regarding New Zealand
You cannot because its not true as you would have discovered had you read the start of your own link rather than selected the evidence you wanted to find
While Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent and Orders in Council, the authority for these acts stems from the New Zealand populace,[4] and, within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited, with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and Justices of the Peace.
Even your own evidence does not support your view.....a rare talent and to applaud yourself for being on the ball and a smartarse is brilliantly well done.
You read and see what you want to and that is not research and it does not lead to the truth