Sorry Woppit, but that’s just waffle, you haven’t actually made any points there… what are you referring to exactly?

PS: I am talking about a mindset, not a universal paradigm. They both spring from a basic misperception of reality. – the idea that there is a hidden power “behind” what is evidently the case.

An example:

In terms of a project like the mass surveillance network operated by GCHQ:

It has been put in place under separate democratically elected governments, entirely removed from the democratic process.

Who chose to initiate such investment? Who authorized such intrusive surveillance? Who continued to expand the project?

These answers may never see the light of day, but it shows whether we like it or not there is an element of hidden power in government, further evidenced by the secrecy of the Privy Council…

Have you gone back to avoiding difficult questions again?

Very good Woppit… you asked about hidden power, I gave you an example and now you’re trying to spin your way out of it… keep wriggling 😉

but it shows whether we like it or not there is an element of hidden power in government, further evidenced by the secrecy of the Privy Council…

there are secrets in all organisations, I bet you have a few. Things you don’t tell people because it’s better not to.

The Government Minister holding office as Lord President of the Council, currently the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP (Deputy Prime Minister),[67] usually presides.[68] Under Britain’s modern conventions of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy, every order made in Council has been drafted by a Government Department and has already been approved by the responsible Ministers—the action taken by the Queen in Council is a mere formality required for the valid adoption of the measure.

Your tactic of reducing your claims of worldwide domination by an elderly woman in a funny hat to what may or may not be said in a couple of private meetings is a big step forward for you.

Do you think, however, that believers in planet-wide conspiracies share the same mindset as those who adopt a belief in a “god”?

It has been put in place under separate democratically elected governments, entirely removed from the democratic process.

Who chose to initiate such investment? Who authorized such intrusive surveillance? Who continued to expand the project?

That’s what the Civil Service does.

Runs the Country and the infrastructure under separately “democratically elected governments”. Is the DVLA part of the conspiracy? They have introduced quite a good website and on-line service, which has expanded in the last few years. Who chose to initiate such investment?

Probably to top up the bank accounts of some MPs and Lords who have shares in the Web Developer 😀

I’m not saying it’s all bad, but keeping your car in order is a fair bit removed from being spied on.

It’s also a fair bit removed from subsidizing the arms industry…

Do you think, however, that believers in planet-wide conspiracies share the same mindset as those who adopt a belief in a “god”?

Nope, corporate control of a planet is far simpler than the scale of the universe

keeping your car in order is a fair bit removed from being spied on.

Not if you work for MI5. It’s just a job in the Civil Service.

I bet 99% of stuff they do is very dull.

Nope, corporate control of a planet is far simpler than the scale of the universe

So it’s “corporate control” now. What happened to the Queen’s “absolute power”?

I never said the Queen has absolute power, that’s the fanatical exaggerations of the excitable lot on here.

Ultimate authority however…

Let’s not forget as a result of the financial crash of 2008, there has been an immense shift in wealth…

What kind of people use tax avoidance schemes provided by many territories under the Queen’s jurisdiction?

What kind of people use tax avoidance schemes provided by many territories under the Queen’s jurisdiction?

We still haven’t proved that the Queen has any jurisdiction at all. You’ve just insinuated it.

So she has authority without power – how does that work exactly?

Small irony note: this thread is assuming similar proportionality to the old STW “Is or isn’t there a god” favourite.

SWIDT?

Carry on.

Absolute power suggests someone can demand something and it will be done with due haste.

Ultimate Authority means someone can authorize or decline decisions made by another on their behalf, thus responsibility is delegated.

The constitution is riddled with obfuscation, with built in scapegoats to absolve the Monarch of any wrongdoing, although it will have been done in her name, on her authority.

The constitution is riddled with obfuscation, with built in scapegoats to absolve the Monarch of any wrongdoing, although it will have been done in her name, on her authority.

In her name (as a figurehead) so the responsibility should stay with those actually making the decisions right?

But who authorizes such decisions…

Absolute power suggests someone can demand something and it will be done with due haste.

But isn’t this just your guess?

The government and parliament. You should probably read the thread where it’s been sown over and over and over again.

Why do you keep asking the same question after it’s already been answered? Are you ignoring the replies?

Why do you keep asking the same question after it’s already been answered? Are you ignoring the replies?

He’s ignoring all answers he doesn’t agree with (as always)

And waiting for an answer he likes, to come along, so he can focus on that instead.

(The answers he likes are pretty much always in posts he writes)

Absolute power suggests someone can demand something and it will be done with due haste.

But isn’t this just your guess?

Fair enough, give us your definition of absolute power…

He’s ignoring all answers he doesn’t agree with (as always)

If I was ignoring the answers, this thread would still be on the 1st page, I’m debating them openly…

Absolute power suggests someone can demand something and it will be done with due haste.

Ultimate Authority means someone can authorize or decline decisions made by another on their behalf, thus responsibility is delegated.

Bingo! My God JHJ you have actually got it right for once, almost.
So, you accept that the Queen isn’t making the decisions. The only bit you have wrong is the extent to which she is able to veto a policy decided on by an elected Government.. The answer is in theory, yes. In reality, no.

Not worth it

The only bit you have wrong is the extent to which she is able to veto a policy decided on by an elected Government.. The answer is in theory, yes. In reality, no.

Proof please…

Furthermore, just how much of the government is elected?

There are elements at the heart of government, where staff and advisors stay in place regardless of who’s elected; Home Office, Foreign Office, MOD etc… they will have strategies in place regardless of who the electorate chooses

Do your own research

There are elements at the heart of government, where staff and advisors stay in place regardless of who’s elected; Home Office, Foreign Office, MOD etc… they will have strategies in place regardless of who the electorate chooses

FFS. That’s called The Civil Service.

Go and watch a few episodes of Yes Minster for some research in how it works.

Do your own research

😀

I have…

which is why I’m asking for proof 😉

Go and watch a few episodes of Yes Minster for some research in how it works.

The constitution is riddled with obfuscation, with built in scapegoats to absolve the Monarch of any wrongdoing, although it will have been done in her name, on her authority.

because she does what elected officials tell her to do

Name a scenario where the crown has done anything that was not at the advice of the “delegates”* as you call them?

I wager two guinea he says due to secrecy we dont really know/ its all done in secret by free masonic paedo lizzards or some such / something only he finds witty and funny because he cannot name a scenario.

* In all honesty you may find something I am not certain. Iraq/wars and royal prerogative was at ministerial advice so dont try that one.

I still want this removed form the crown as it is a real power but it is never actually used. I realise this is too nuanced a debate to have with you though so lets see when the crown last overruled elected officials

Ok and we can’t even let her have the Barmy Army or the Tartan Army (both currently on overseas deployment)

Historic power of the Monarchy Henry the VIII wants to marry someone he marries them and damn what anyone thinks .

Modern power of the monarchy:-
“In 1930, the Prince, who had already had a number of affairs, had met and fallen in love with a married American woman, Mrs Wallis Simpson. Concern about Edward’s private life grew in the Cabinet, opposition parties and the Dominions, when Mrs Simpson obtained a divorce in 1936 and it was clear that Edward was determined to marry her.

Eventually Edward realised he had to choose between the Crown and Mrs Simpson who, as a twice-divorced woman, would not have been acceptable as Queen.”
King has to Abdicate.

Our modern constitution is built around the Monarchy but it clearly does not have the Monarchy at the heart of power.

I still want this removed form the crown as it is a real power but it is never actually used.

Therein lies much of the problem, we agree on the most fundamental points of the whole debate, but for some reason, there is a need to argue, when in reality, we share common beliefs.

Perhaps looking for solutions and not problems is a better way forward…

Admittedly, it is a bit of a Catch 22 when it comes to revealing instances of the Queen’s veto, as there is secrecy on such matters.

“When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present – not even the Queen’s Private Secretary.

The closest example I can find is the veto applied by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, when he over-ruled a court to prevent publication of letters from Prince Charles to Ministers

we agree on the most fundamental points of the whole debate, but for some reason, there is a need to argue, when in reality, we share common beliefs.

I think I preferred it when you insulted me rather than claimed me as an ally 😉

That was a minister acting to protect the future King’s “impartiality”.
I liked the way they had a trial then over ruled/ignored it’s decision because they did not like it

the crown was not involved in this FIA decision as far as I am aware

Like I’ve said, obfuscation and delegation is rife:

Attorney General:

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales, usually known simply as the Attorney General, is one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Along with the subordinate Solicitor General for England and Wales, the Attorney General serves as the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government in England and Wales.

I liked the way they had a trial then over ruled/ignored it’s decision because they did not like it

It’s a bit like asking the same question over and over, ignoring all the answers you don’t like.

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all involved in this post. It reassures me that stw can still offer harbour to those in need of a good internet argument and those who believe they can influence those beyond reason.

Good job all! Carry on!

jivehoneyjive – Member
The only bit you have wrong is the extent to which she is able to veto a policy decided on by an elected Government.. The answer is in theory, yes. In reality, no.
Proof please…

In fifty years of enthronement, she hasn’t. So powerless is the throne, that the incumbent for being up next, complains that it doesn’t have enough influence and is kicking up a storm about how he intends to exercise more of it. Unconstitutionally.

Unless of course, you think that he’s just saying this to make us think that he does have influence, but wants us to think that he doesn’t. In which case we’re back (again) to square one on The Dark Side Of The JHJ…