Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:44 am

Hwen Hoshino wrote:
BjornP wrote:
Hwen Hoshino wrote:Isn't he a Canadian?
Who is the head of state of Canada, Hwen?
Ceremonial shit don't mean nothing.

It does to us. God Save The Queen.

Post by **SuburbanFarmer** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:53 am

StCapps wrote:
Hwen Hoshino wrote:
BjornP wrote:
Who is the head of state of Canada, Hwen?
Ceremonial shit don't mean nothing.
It does to us. God Save The Queen.

Yeah, and eagles and apple pie and shit.

Nobody takes anything she says seriously. It's a figurehead.

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:12 pm

GrumpyCatFace wrote:Nobody takes anything she says seriously. It's a figurehead.

No law gets passed without her say so. The Monarch isn't supposed to step in and govern unless parliament breaks down and is unable to govern, and then only until parliament gets it's shit together. It's a pretty sweet system that has an excellent historical record of good governance, no matter how many jokes you care to make.

Post by **Hwen Hoshino** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:55 pm

StCapps wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Nobody takes anything she says seriously. It's a figurehead.
No law gets passed without her say so. The Monarch isn't supposed to step in and govern unless parliament breaks down and is unable to govern, and then only until parliament gets it's shit together. It's a pretty sweet system that has an excellent historical record of good governance, no matter how many jokes you care to make.

Did she stand up against anything immoral?

Post by **SuburbanFarmer** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:58 pm

Hwen Hoshino wrote:
StCapps wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Nobody takes anything she says seriously. It's a figurehead.
No law gets passed without her say so. The Monarch isn't supposed to step in and govern unless parliament breaks down and is unable to govern, and then only until parliament gets it's shit together. It's a pretty sweet system that has an excellent historical record of good governance, no matter how many jokes you care to make.
Did she stand up against anything immoral?

Has she ever vetoed a law in the past 50 years? Serious question.

Post by **Montegriffo** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:41 pm

GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Hwen Hoshino wrote:
StCapps wrote:No law gets passed without her say so. The Monarch isn't supposed to step in and govern unless parliament breaks down and is unable to govern, and then only until parliament gets it's shit together. It's a pretty sweet system that has an excellent historical record of good governance, no matter how many jokes you care to make.
Did she stand up against anything immoral?
Has she ever vetoed a law in the past 50 years? Serious question.

YUP......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eveal.html

At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws in areas such as higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was also asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act in 2004.

In the Whitehall document, which was released following a court order, the Parliamentary Counsel warns that if consent is not given by the royals "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals have "real influence and real power".

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," he said.

The document also contains a warning to civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation. Royal approval may even be needed for amendments to laws, it says.

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals "are playing an active role in the democratic process".

He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the powers were "appropriate."

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," he said.

"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."

The power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12 government bills since 2005 on issues covering gambling to the Olympics.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills

Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

Post by **SuburbanFarmer** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:59 pm

I'm confused by that.. there are 39 new laws which were "subject to Royal approval", but it doesn't name any that were actually vetoed... Same for the article..

Post by **Montegriffo** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:54 pm

Tsk tsk my dear boy, you must learn to skim better

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

The power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12 government bills since 2005 on issues covering gambling to the Olympics.

These are just the ones they were able to find out about......

Post by **SuburbanFarmer** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:11 pm

Montegriffo wrote:Tsk tsk my dear boy, you must learn to skim better

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

The power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12 government bills since 2005 on issues covering gambling to the Olympics.
These are just the ones they were able to find out about......

So, either they just did a quick end-around this little inconvenience, or Her Majesty has some sort of secret war room beneath Buckingham Palace, ordering British air forces in the Middle East. No wonder she looks so tired...

Post by **Zlaxer** » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:32 pm

Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?

Re: Smitty's last post was Feb 25th, should we put his face on a milk carton?