llewop wrote:we are already subjugated by EU. british citizens have to abide by rules set out by the EU, even some absurd rules about the size and shape of our vegetables. why british citizens should be ruled by people from a different country is beyond reasoning.
Wrong. The UK PLC has a treaty with the EU and the EU is directing the Government in the production of contractual policy which applies to the Government and it's agents and only the Government and it's agents. Go watch John's Videos again, and buy a copy of Blacks law dictionary to verify the terms given.
The method of fooling and controlling ignorant people into contracting as if they are agents of the government is entirely our own invention and nothing to do with the EU.
llewop wrote:nope, impossible since the people would recognise this and higher numbers of people would enter into a form of lawful rebellion against the dictatorship. as it is, most people are under the illusion that there is no dictatorship... yet politicians have to take an oath to serve the queen. Serve the queen and not the people!
Any would be dictator, would simply use direct intimidation, mass arrests and other time honoured methods of tyranny to quell any dissent from their rule. The principle reason for having a Consitutional Monarchy as opposed to an Absolute Monarchy, a republic or democracy is that the person at the top of the pile is bound and constrained by the law. This notion, that law comes from the people and is binding upon everyone all the way to the top, is unique to our island and millions of people have laid down their lives in many wars to uphold and protect this most important of principles.
Despite the drug induced paranoia we see in people like llewop we do not in fact live in a tyranny or a dictatorship. We live in a big stage show which only works on ignorant and stupid people or people who are too blinded by their own petty jealously and bigotry to actually investigate the truth objectively.
There is an old saying, "THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE". This statement is 100% accurate and correct.
The agents of the government do indeed serve The Queen, who herself bound by her coronation Oath is duty bound to uphold the Sovereignty of the British people in accordance with the law. She is constitutionally bound to this duty and she cannot break the law, nor is she above the law. Her duties do not include making sure that you "get it" or convincing you of anything when your own ignorance, stupidity and apathy prevent you from finding out the truth out for yourself by availing yourself of the many great works of literature available for free at the local library, books which totalitarian dictators would definitely have burnt.
The Queen is not your mum, your nanny, your personal saviour or your personal tutor. She does not owe you anything as a human being and she has no contract with you personally as one sovereign being to another.
Another old saying that everyone knows; "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO DEFENCE". If you can't realise the opposite of that statement would be "Knowledge of the law is the only defence you need", then your daft and you don't deserve the protection the law affords to all those who bother to educate themselves.
THE LAW IS THE SAFEST HELMET. The processes of law have been developed and honed over centuries to serve and protect the people, the constitution of the UK is respected and admired around the world as a model of civilised society and a cornerstone in the development of human rights and freedom.
llewop wrote:it is not neutral at all. politicians oath is to serve the queen and not the people.
Politically neutral. As in, the Monarch cannot take sides in the political process. She is not a Tory or a Labourite, nor a Green or a Yellow, the Constitutional Monarchy is the over-arching framework which these parties are required to operate within and under the rule of law. The Monarch serves the principles of upholding the law and keeping the peace, it is not the monarchs responsibility or duty to molly coddle you and make sure your having a good time. You are expected to do your own duty to the best of your ability to obey the law and look after your own interests whilst remaining at peace with your neighbours. If you can't or won't do that your either insane or a criminal. If your insane that's not your fault and a plea of insanity to criminal charges is a strong defence in law.
llewop wrote: people who do not take the oath to serve the queen are not allowed in parliament.
And damn right that should be the case too. The last thing the country needs is politicians in power who have no Oath to measure their behaviour against and hold them accountable to by law. The rampant Oath breaking which has been going on in the last 30 years or so is adequate proof that not only is the system breaking down after all these centuries of operation, but also that we need to hold our politicians to their Oaths more sternly, not release them from those shackles entirely!
From that principle it is possible to derive the argument, as some do, that our Monarch has failed us and is guilty of the crime of treason by failing to hold accountable for their actions those who have broken their oaths. I find it highly unlikely that the Queen would be complicit in the destruction of her own position and standing, and therefore at this time I cannot endorse the accusation. It is a requirement of law that motive for a crime be established. Since the law applies to the Monarch just as much as anyone else and the accusation of misconduct is a lawful argument, the law must be adhered to in the mounting of any form of prosecution. Clearly until the prosecution has clearly established motive the case cannot be heard.
llewop wrote:we vote for the politicians who then in turn serve the queen. not the people.
Politicians only ever serve one person, themselves. This is a near universally understood principle, mentioned and referenced throughout popular literature and movie media.
Quote : "I'm a politician, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollypops" - The Hunt for Red October.
See also the comedy shows, "Spitting Image" and "Yes, Minister".
llewop wrote:the royals have not refused any parliament laws for over 300 years.
Correct. For over 3 centuries they have not meddled or interfered with the decisions made by the lawmakers and politicians in parliament through the accepted democratic process. I.E, they have not been dictatorial during that time.
It's only the last few decades when things appear to have really gone wrong.
llewop wrote: they are snobbish, elitist and out of touch with modern day society.
Llewop, I'm sure, has never met or spent any time in the company of any of the Royal family, and I also sincerely doubt he would behave in their company as he does with others he has not already pre-judiciously condemned within his own mind. He claims they are out of touch with society, and yet offers no insight into what he believes an "in touch" Monarch would do.
llewop wrote:its necessary for them to have a massive public relations team in order to keep the illusion up eg recently the queen attended a wedding of one of her subjects. nothing other than PR since it was plastered all over the media.
Everything the Royals do is always plastered all over the media, the Royals apparently HATE that fact, and William and Harry appear to hold a sincere wish for a normal life, as do many famous people with the exception of those who have narcissistic personality disorders, who crave constant attention and behave like spoilt children when they are upstaged by a new act. I see no reason to believe that the Royals also suffer from such needs or desires, since typically people with those problems have acquired them through traumatic experiences in childhood such as abusive parents or school bullies. Concluding they love media attention would be completely inconsistent with their behaviour, the way they sneak out of the back of buildings to avoid paparazzi, and the fact that Lady Diana lost her life apparently (but not for certainty), in a car accident speeding to get away from the media scum-bags who were hounding her every waking moment.
llewop wrote:the monarchy is bad for democracy
In his own words on this very comment I am responding to, he just complained that the Royals have NOT interfered with the process of democracy for over 300 years, and now here he claims the monarchy is bad for democracy.
and also bad for our own money! the tax payer is forced to pay for the upkeep of the royal family (only slaves pay taxes!) and nothing of any value is shown to the very people who are forced to pay for the royal family lifestyle.
It has been calculated that the upkeep of the Royal family costs each person in the UK in the order of £3 annually. This figure would not be significantly reduced by the removal of the Monarchy in favour of a partisan President, since all of the diplomatic functions and state visits would remain on the schedule, as would the upkeep of the castles and palaces which are already owned by the public and not the Royals and which will fall into ruin if not maintained. The Queen basically lives in the countries biggest council house, check the facts if you do not believe this to be the case. A President would also receive a handsome salary, as would his entourage of staff and all of the people involved in the day to day running of his office.
llewop wrote: The royals give parliament and the government power, the queen gives most of her power to the PM. this is done as a disguise... a smokescreen as it were... because if the queen made laws, the citizens nowadays would revolt. as it is, it is disguised in the fact that parliament make laws... but such laws are made not for the benefit of the british citizen, but are made for the benefit of the monarchy and to keep the entire family in a lifestyle to which they are accustomed.
In some countries of the world, for instance the United Arab Emirates, the political system is one of Absolute Monarchy. In that country the King directly controls the government and oddly enough (to people with no insight), during the Arab spring there was no uprising in the UAE. As a nation, the multicultural population made up of over 200 nationalities go about their lives in peace and harmony, and nearly universally admire the leadership of their King who has transformed their society from a primitive desert backwater into a bustling and prosperous modern society in a mere 40 years by ruling with wisdom and making laws which keep the peace and promote individual property rights and commerce. I heartily recommend visiting the place to see what a properly run lawful kingdom really looks like without the corrosive and destructive influence of the corrupt political class.
llewop wrote:council tax, tax on your wages, all the stupid laws that nobody wants.... if such laws were to come from the royals, then most people wouldn't want the royal family. as it is, it is disguised in a way so that even though the queen does not make the laws, she benefits from such laws in the way the royal family is paid for through taxes.
I have no doubt that the majority of the people who read this will be aware that the vast majority of taxation collected goes directly to pay the ridiculously huge national debt which itself is an artefact of the viciously predatory and deceptive fiat currency banking system. Removing the Royals will not solve that problem. Failing to make our payments would be disastrous for the economy which supplies our material needs, and for the other economies which are locked into the same system with us who we owe billions of pounds to. It might even be considered an act of war.
If the Queen was to dissolve parliament and retake absolute sovereignty in the same fashion as the king of the UAE, we could massively slash the level of taxation whilst still retaining the key public services such as hospitals and fire-brigades, however doing that without the full backing of the people is likely to result in civil war, the execution of the Royals and the plunging of the country into the same sort of military dictatorship as existed the last time this sort of thing happened when Cromwell took over. The politicians would then have free reign on producing law, devoid of constitutional restraint and the rule of law, which would plunge us instantly back into a new dark ages undoing many centuries of progress. Only a complete fool or a lunatic would actively want a civil war to take place, as the cost in lives and people's livelyhood's would be staggering.
llewop wrote:taxpayers can not fully see how much the royals cost since the royals are not under any obligation to provide this info.
Wrong, the accounts are public information.
llewop wrote:there is a spin on the info that their total cost divided between every person in britain is quite cheap... yet this figure is questionable. government does not base its figures on the same way as the monarchy, showing that the monarchy kind of makes it up as it goes along, under secrecy and pretence.
Oh right yes... some secrecy, the information and a complete financial report for the 2010-2011 tax year can be found right here :
It took all of 2 seconds to do a Google search for this information.
llewop wrote:the monarchy is unelected. undemocratic. and totally unfair.
If the monarchy was elected they would be subject to the political whims of the electorate and therefore biased and partisan and completely unable to maintain the most important aspect of political neutrality.
In the UK, which is still one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the poverty line for a single adult with no children is considered to be around £124 per week, or about £17.71 per day. Over half the world's population, some 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 (£1.56) a day. It is an absolute sick joke to say that the poverty experienced by anyone in the UK is anything like the absolutely desperate situation endured by over half the worlds people. Globally around 5 million people starve to death each year, but here in the UK a single death by starvation would be headline news and result in a public enquiry.
As previously established the accounts for the expenses for the Royals are a matter of public record. If we are talking about lawful accountability that is a constitutional matter and the subject of the ongoing debate on the matter of treason, and if that case should be proven by law the Queen is accountable for her actions by the authority of her Oath.
llewop wrote:there has never been a vote as to whether we want the monarchy or not.
Sure there was, right after Cromwell took over and showed the people what life is like without a Monarchy, the people DEMANDED it's return. They would do so again if it was removed, however since the politicians are very unlikely to put those constitutional handcuffs back on their wrists, restoring the Monarchy after having thrown it out of the pram with the rest of the toys will likely require another civil war against a military armed with 21st century weaponry on the digital battlefield.
llewop wrote:the monarchy is essentially an unelected head of state. parliament are clearly puppets, with their suport for the queen.
The politicians are puppets, but their strings are being pulled by the Banksters not the Royals. The system of Oaths through which control over the politicians actions was traditionally maintained has fallen apart and become pretty much unenforceable over the centuries.
Part of treason act: any person whatsoever, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honor or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom
only one good thing about the monarchy is that it can use its powers to get everyone out of the awful mess imposed on us by parliament and the EU. but it would never do this because it is both parliament and the EU that is keeping the monarchy in a lifestyle to which its accustomed.
The EU does not give a hoot about the monarchy and is actively destroying it by requiring that Parliament create thousands of new legislations which are turning the people away from the Sovereign with the ultimate endgame goal of reducing parliament down to a local branch of the administrative power in Brussels, and the once proud United Kingdom to a mere province of the EU under the jackboot control of the unrestrained system of power in Brussels which is the creation of the bankster empire.... joy.
The real reason the Queen has not dissolved parliament is probably as stated above, the people have democratically elected representatives who decided to join it, and overriding them is counter-democratic and is likely to lead to civil war, something which the Queen is sworn to try avoid in the sake of maintaining the peace.
Right, stick a fork in me, I'm done.