[Not So] Random Thoughts...

[WBarnes]

It'll be interesting to see if SNP ministers are so quick to insist that she goes as well as Boris.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Matski]

It'll be interesting to see if SNP ministers are so quick to insist that she goes as well as Boris.

If that was the deal on offer I'm sure most British people could bare the sacrifice.

 

[WBarnes]

If that was the deal on offer I'm sure most British people could bare the sacrifice.

TBH I would now prefer it if Parliament started discussing important politics rather than grandstanding on this same thing over and over.

 

[SCOTT27]

These new sex-bots are not only diverse. But more realistic than ever.

 

[Matski]

We have an unelected, unremovable head of state. If we didn't speak English the world would pity us.

 

[Deleted member 57437]

View attachment 592155




We have an unelected, unremovable head of state. If we didn't speak English the world would pity us.

Yeah...

but WE had Angela Merkel and NOW have Olaf Scholz. In addition, quite competent as a chancellor during his tenure, Gerhard Schröder has been in Putin's pocket for quite some time now. Gerhard loves hangin' with his Gazprom and Rosneft oligarch bros as well.

But..yep. These people were elected (I also cast my ballot for two of the aforementioned-one general election each) and speak German. And we're not being pitied. We're being laughed at. And I'm embarrassed.

 

[WBarnes]

Tourist attraction.

 

[Matski]

Yeah...

but WE had Angela Merkel and NOW have Olaf Scholz. In addition, quite competent as a chancellor during his tenure, Gerhard Schröder has been in Putin's pocket for quite some time now. Gerhard loves hangin' with his Gazprom and Rosneft oligarch bros as well.

But..yep. These people were elected (I also cast my ballot for two of the aforementioned-one general election each) and speak German. And we're not being pitied. We're being laughed at. And I'm embarrassed.

Yeah, we have elected morons too, most countries do. That doesn't mean a self-appointed ruler whose removal is high crime is a good thing.

Tourist attraction.

With an army, that takes money from my wages, and has MP's supposedly elected to represent the people swear allegiance to them.

Stop and actually think about it for a few minutes.

 

[Deleted member 57437]

Yeah, we have elected morons too, most countries do. That doesn't mean a self-appointed ruler whose removal is high crime is a good thing.



With an army, that takes money from my wages, and has MP's supposedly elected to represent the people swear allegiance to them.

Stop and actually think about it for a few minutes.

There is a distinct fascination with "The Royals" here in Germany, especially among 50+ years of age women. I imagine that it has much to do with the late Lady Diana, who was an absolute cult figure here. William and Kate also enjoy a lot of coverage in the German celebrity gossip press, as do Harry and Megan (although in a far less flattering context). Certainly, the connection of elements of German ancestry, Battenbergs, Saxe Coburg & Gotha (Windsors) and what have you, may have much to do with it as well. And especially up here in the northwest where I reside, many Germans are anglophiles.

 

[WBarnes]

Yeah, we have elected morons too, most countries do. That doesn't mean a self-appointed ruler whose removal is high crime is a good thing.



With an army, that takes money from my wages, and has MP's supposedly elected to represent the people swear allegiance to them.

Stop and actually think about it for a few minutes.

That's all for show though.

If you look back at a Times Rich List from 1989, The Queen was actually the richest person in Europe and the richest woman in the world. She gave a huge amount of revenue generating properties over to the taxpayer. Did she really earn it all? Did a lot of rich people really earn it all?

 

[Matski]

There is a distinct fascination with "The Royals" here in Germany, especially among 50+ years of age women. I imagine that it has much to do with the late Lady Diana, who was an absolute cult figure here. William and Kate also enjoy a lot of coverage in the German celebrity gossip press, as do Harry and Megan (although in a far less flattering context). Certainly, the connection of elements of German ancestry, Battenbergs, Saxe Coburg & Gotha (Windsors) and what have you, may have much to do with it as well. And especially up here in the northwest where I reside, many Germans are anglophiles.

The Saxe-Coburg & Gotha dynasty permeates a lot of Europe, it feels like there's an unusual amount of attention on our Royal family, but I don't really know how other counties monarchies are considered.

I'd honestly never really thought about it much until I took an interest in how our democracy functions, they're just kind of always there... and I've no real problem with Lizzie, but to me it rapidly became mind-boggling that people accept it in this day and age. Think about what it takes to replace a Prime Minister, Chancellor, or President - people exercising their democratic rights (admittedly with varying effectiveness)... now think about what it takes to change a monarch... treason or war. That fact alone should be ringing alarm bells.

That's all for show though.

Royal prerogatives (including the declaration or War, and the deployment of the armed forces) and sovereign immunity is categorically not for show. Neither is the overarching say on our legislature, Royal Assent might seem a traditional formality but it's the face of her inherited power to dictate the law of the land. Don't let the fact a lot of her duties are surrounded by show disguise the fact that its a token gesture to appease the people. We might be luck in having a reasonably benevolent monarch, but it is just that, luck. It is not a systemically peaceful role.

If you're okay with it, that's fine, it's also a coincidence. You couldn't do a single thing about it if you weren't. I think Boris Johnson is a lying, manipulative sack of shit, I am at least offered the opportunity to have a say in whether he gets to govern the country (even if FPTP does, in practice, consign my vote for any other party's MP to the bin), and to a degree (the limited degree that's afforded by not having proportional representation), that legitimises his role as our Prime Minister.

 

[WBarnes]

Royal prerogatives (including the declaration or War, and the deployment of the armed forces) and sovereign immunity is categorically not for show. Neither is the overarching say on our legislature, Royal Assent might seem a traditional formality but it's the face of her inherited power to dictate the law of the land. Don't let the fact a lot of her duties are surrounded by show disguise the fact that its a token gesture to appease the people. We might be luck in having a reasonably benevolent monarch, but it is just that, luck. It is not a systemically peaceful role.

If you're okay with it, that's fine, it's also a coincidence. You couldn't do a single thing about it if you weren't. I think Boris Johnson is a lying, manipulative sack of shit, I am at least offered the opportunity to have a say in whether he gets to govern the country (even if FPTP does, in practice, consign my vote for any other party's MP to the bin), and to a degree (the limited degree that's afforded by not having proportional representation), that legitimises his role as our Prime Minister.

I could be wrong but I think the vast majority of those powers were forfeited voluntarily in the 1990s.

 

[Matski]

I could be wrong but I think the vast majority of those powers were forfeited voluntarily in the 1990s.

Her powers may have changed in the 1990's, and their were attempts at further reforms in the early 2000's, but recent Parliamentary reports on the Queen's role do not rule these things out of being her Sovereign right. From what I've read though, they tend to dwell more on the Royal prerogative granted to them as part of the Crown, than what's been removed as a Sovereign right.

Part of the issue is the lack of formal codification of the 'rules', with many powers relying on precedent - but with a reasonable understanding that precedent could be ridiculously outdated. Parliaments official reporting on the subject literally relates the Sovereign's powers to Medieval Kings, and questions precedent based on the fact they are "ancient powers". Ultimately it's difficult for people like you or me to question the monarchs powers, because it literally takes lawyers analyzing decades, even centuries, of case law to find answers -- even the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that there is not a single agreed definition of Royal prerogative powers.

More modern precedent has allowed for an erosion of the Royal prerogative, but there's also allowance for convention or precedent not dictating statute. For example, as far as I can tell she still has the sovereign right to deploy her majesties armed forces with or without the advice of the government/the privy council, though by convention, she does not. It may be convention for the government/privy council to consult Parliament before deploying her majesties armed forces (by the Crowns Royal prerogative), but it is not required. The fact that in either case, the same thing usually happens, does not legally set precedent - this is accepted and acknowledged by Parliament.

 

[WBarnes]

Her powers may have changed in the 1990's, and their were attempts at further reforms in the early 2000's, but recent Parliamentary reports on the Queen's role do not rule these things out of being her Sovereign right. From what I've read though, they tend to dwell more on the Royal prerogative granted to them as part of the Crown, than what's been removed as a Sovereign right.

Part of the issue is the lack of formal codification of the 'rules', with many powers relying on precedent - but with a reasonable understanding that precedent could be ridiculously outdated. Parliaments official reporting on the subject literally relates the Sovereign's powers to Medieval Kings, and questions precedent based on the fact they are "ancient powers". Ultimately it's difficult for people like you or me to question the monarchs powers, because it literally takes lawyers analyzing decades, even centuries, of case law to find answers -- even the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that there is not a single agreed definition of Royal prerogative powers.

More modern precedent has allowed for an erosion of the Royal prerogative, but there's also allowance for convention or precedent not dictating statute. For example, as far as I can tell she still has the sovereign right to deploy her majesties armed forces with or without the advice of the government/the privy council, though by convention, she does not. It may be convention for the government/privy council to consult Parliament before deploying her majesties armed forces (by the Crowns Royal prerogative), but it is not required. The fact that in either case, the same thing usually happens, does not legally set precedent - this is accepted and acknowledged by Parliament.

I'm not too sure of her rights, probably because she never exercises them. We do score as a full democracy though.

Democracy Countries 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[SCOTT27]

 

[J.E]

I'm shocked with the amount of Americans complaining about fuel prices. I guess they'll have to trade their Explorers for Corollas or perhaps lease a Tesla at "smooth installments", because EVs are the future and in the future "you will own nothing and you'll be happy".

 

[WBarnes]

Fuel isn't even that expensive in the US. Now they're basically paying the same price Europeans were paying at the start of the year.

 

[J.E]

Is true that Joe Biden admitted that he has cancer? Anyway, just heard that he tested positive for COVID-19.

 

[martinbo]

Here's a worthwhile read offering a perspective on class advantage vs personal success:

What the absurd class cosplay of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss tells us about Britain | Nesrine Malik

The UK’s rampant class anxiety is enabling Tory leadership candidates who want to pretend we live in a meritocracy, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

 

[J.E]

Joe Biden now has a fever. That's definitely NOT a good sign when you've got COVID.

My dad had fever when he had COVID and it was pretty much downhill for him from then on.

I miss my dad.