I don't really know why I continue to be surprised at the general level of ignorance around here.
Jordan Rivera
First for Kuenssberg's legs and feet.
Parker Jones
I just leave Brit/pol/ open and wait for a decent discussion to arise. More times than not, it never does. People here have the average IQ of an Ethiopian.
Joseph Williams
Thread is dead today.
Daniel Howard
...
Camden Diaz
Haven't seen the "start buying guns" guy in a while. Maybe he threw away his tinfoil hat and realised there won't be a race war.
Noah Morales
good now it matches the country
Cooper Bennett
Lel I started that, but that wasn't one person.
Bentley Carter
Post like this () make my physically angry. People seem to just assume how things work, then assume themselves an authority on that matter henceforth.
Cooper Anderson
Queen Elizabeth II is one of our worst monarchs.
Leo Murphy
>said the baby tier nihilist who roleplays as a cartoon superhero
Gavin Parker
How about you counter it you cocksucker?
Jack Flores
deaths to all the kangz and queens , fuck MONARCHY !
Jeremiah Perry
>what was the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history
Camden Wood
I just sent this bitch dick pics on Twitter and asked her out for a drink.
Liam Fisher
>t.Charles
Josiah Martin
How can I explain how a car works to someone who refuses to grasp the wheel.
Carson Kelly
Jeremy Clarkson is gonna die lads.
Robert Sullivan
The Windsors are just generally useless, glorified celebrities.
Aaron Green
Not their fault. They're piloting a plane with no fuel.
James Gray
It's well within the monarch's power to influence public opinion you utter imbecile.
Jose Powell
We're all going to die.
Hunter Campbell
At least the bring in lots of tourist money.
Camden Sanders
Eddie, you aren't half retarded some of the time
Asher Robinson
tripfags are dumb
Michael Thomas
Not an argument.
The Monarch refuses to use their power as a public figure for the greater good. Sickening.
Gabriel King
i repeat >what was the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history and >what did these historical events do to the constitutional position of the monarch
Juan Murphy
The Monarch as a whole has been in steady decline since, arguably, the civil war era but 1688 assigned the role a slow decline in which powers were more and more thrusted upon Ministers of the Crown, and acted upon by self parties. As opposed to the Monarch her/himself simply acting based off Ministerial advice, entire roles were placed upon these ministers which completely unbalanced our system. The Act of Union 1707 forbade the Crown from having any presence in any public assembly in the country, in 1708 Queen Anne withheld Royal Assent on the Scottish Militia Bill causing an outrage (even the American Revolution nearly a century later was partly blamed on this) thus it was never refused again, now it isn't even assigned in person. This steady decline peaked, probably, at Victoria whom was the first monarch in history to come to power knowing she'd have no active role in government which completely unbalanced our system.
From what you're saying, you act as though this is completely new and Queen Elizabeth herself is to blame as opposed to 400 years of history leading up until this point.
Isaiah Harris
Because they have no power to do so as set by a 3 century old precedent in an electorate who values broken democracy over everything.
Cooper Martinez
>The Monarch can't influence public opinion
Are you stupid lad?
Evan Martin
Good
Cameron Russell
Fucking hope so, man's a cunt.
Thomas Gray
I wonder what the official NHS position on gender reassignment is. I'm not thrilled with the prospect of paying for these idiots to mutilate themselves.
Andrew Anderson
They can't directly you fucking monkey and they aren't going to reverse 300 years of political change simply by speaking up.
Carter James
400*
Tyler Cook
To an extent, yes, but you cannot absolve them of all blame. You yourself have talked about how Victoria was the first to not sign Royal Perogative in person, setting a precedent that the monarch doesn't.
Logan Reed
Can't help but notice Victoria did OK in spite of the restrictions tons...
Gabriel Fisher
It's pointless lad, we explain this shit to them daily, and yet they always completely ignore it and make the same retarded argument the next day as if you hadn't already countered their point. It's infuriating.
James Morris
Victoria knew she'd have no real active role in government from the beginning of her reign.
You mean parliament did OK.
Jason Powell
Aah, but I was trying to argue a role such as Victoria's for our Monarch.
You see, Victoria wasn't entirely apolitical. She influenced public opinion greatly. Yet out Monarch does not, nor do any of the royal family. Their political opinions are unknown.
Jaxon Turner
Do any drive-bys lately old chap?
James Russell
if the monarch starts constantly shooting their mouth off about politics then they run the risk of influencing public opinion, as soon as they draw the attention to themselves then people start asking why an unelected hereditary monarch has any power to influence anyone, then the monarch succeeds in chopping off the branch that the monarchy sits on, i.e. a branch made of public goodwill and of the knowledge that the monarch, despite being unelected and hereditary, is an impotent figurehead. all of this is a result of the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history. do you NOW understand?
>calls me stupid top kek
John Garcia
t. rabid left leaning vegan uni student
Kevin Taylor
>those tits
MUMMY
Justin Gonzalez
>they have no power to do so
Show me the law that prevents them from being an activist
Isaac Gray
This is becoming a daily occurrence, it's probably simpler sending them to 4plebs.
>Aah, but I was trying to argue a role such as Victoria's for our Monarch. This is what we have now essentially.
Jeremiah Adams
By the time Victoria stopped signing royal assent the precedent was already a century set that the Monarch always agrees with the electorate representative. Why does this argument need to be had every single fucking time, it's the same points being refuted every single fucking time. It's as if everyone is so allergic to being wrong that they just expunge all memory of being proven wrong.
James Hall
>LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is prepared to pay up to 40 billion euros (36.12 billion pounds) as part of a deal to leave the European Union, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported, citing three unnamed sources familiar with Britain's negotiating strategy.
>The newspaper said British officials were likely to offer to pay 10 billion euros a year for three years after leaving the EU in March 2019, then finalise the total alongside detailed trade talks.
That's precisely why I said the Monarch was too frightened to do anything.
They were frightened of public backlash. However, it's also why I said it's partly their own fault for not justifying why a Monarch is necessary.
Oliver Robinson
>not understanding the difference between de jure and de facto
jesus christ user
Isaiah Morales
They shouldn't need to justify why a Monarch is necessary. 1000 years of our history is centered around the role.
Lincoln Rivera
Victoria made actual suggestions as to how Britain should operate.
Our Queen does literally nothing.
Gabriel Mitchell
if they speak out they get removed from power, then whatever they spoke out against goes ahead anyway
hurr durr
Matthew Watson
So you can't show me?
Good to know.
Ryder Brown
>Queen Elizabeth II
>let woman run country >turn empire into shithole
where did i see it happen? right, its merkel in slow-mo. yet merkel gets bashed on, rightfully. wondering why elizabeth ii doesnt get the same shit - granted, it took her 50 years to turn her empire into shit, while merkel managed to ruin her country in 2 years.
Jackson Edwards
Nothing you have said has proved you are not an idiot or a child.
Luis Ramirez
You're assuming the Monarch couldn't afford to back a political position. If they couldn't it's de facto, but if they could, and don't out of fear, then they are literally just feeble
Asher Brooks
In the long vista of the years to roll, Let me not see our country’s honour fade: O let me see our land retain her soul, Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade. From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed— Beneath thy pinions canopy my head
Hunter Wilson
>if they speak out they get removed from power
I disagree
Jaxson Ramirez
Ok
Noah Thompson
That doesn't mean the monarchy is powerless
Colton Rodriguez
That's not true at all. The Queen fulfils all the roles she should, she simply can't use to her full extent what, technically, is legal through her Prerogative Powers. Besides, for all you know, Queen Elizabeth does exactly the same and influences ministers behind the scenes in the same manor in which Victoria did, these things usually don't come to light until after the death of said Monarch. Regardless of all that, Victoria's position left a gaping hope in our constitution in which a Monarch acts as oversight of parliament, who enact the will of the people. Victoria, too, had lost those powers by the time of her reign in practice. In theory, they exist until this day and the Queen could dissolve parliament tomorrow if you want to LARP.
Yes it does you fool.
Cameron Clark
You know what uncodified mean right? Show me the law where the largest party leader becomes PM? There isn't one, it's uncodified precedent. But to disobey would cause crisis.
Seriously faggots our entire legal and political history is based on case law and precedent, yet you utter fucking retards still refuse to even try and understand the basis of what many of you cite as one of the greatest legacies of the Empire, yet you constantly scream that if it isn't codified it isn't real. This is beyond retarded.
Jackson Perry
Could you please explain where in any of the history of the law of this country, is political power assigned to the media?
Does the media hold political power?
Dylan Ward
Victoria's speeches were also charged.
I never said the Queen should exercise any power through constitutional levers, just that she could afford to voice her opinion a bit more. Perhaps on the Church, perhaps on societal decline.
The silence of the Monarch is defeaning. I can think of no other Monarch who would remain silent.
Luke Lee
>what is influence Retard.
Michael Reyes
>Does the media hold political power? They obviously do, but there isn't a codified bit of legislation which hands them political power. What kind of question is that?
>I never said the Queen should exercise any power through constitutional levers, just that she could afford to voice her opinion a bit more This is exactly what I'm advocating for, though. I don't want a Queen like Victoria who resorted to influencing ministerial affairs behind the scenes and influencing fashion choices.
Kevin Rivera
I never said it wouldn't cause a crisis. However, just because there's no precedent for it under the current Monarch doesn't mean it can't happen.
Unless you think we should just accept defeat because if we don't there'd be a crisis.
Logan Stewart
So even if you considered the codified legislation that restricts the Monarch's power to be legitimate, do you still deny that the monarch has power?
>influence isn't a form of power Keep digging that hole
Landon Baker
We've LARPed on here many times, and have openly spoken about scenarios in which a Monarch might use their Prerogative powers and refuse Royal Assent, Queen's consent, appointment powers etc, and I've said I can think of many scenarios in the last 200 years where, I think, such an act would be warranted, however it hasn't happened for the very specific reason that such an Act would put the entire Crown at risk.
So please, when discussing Monarchical affairs, try not to LARP and remain in reality.
Carter Carter
>The same people who support keeping th e Monarch quiet to avoid crisis unironically support the deposition of James II for a cloggywog
Just because it causes a crisis doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.
Nolan Edwards
I never advocated that, lad.
I am advocating the Monarch speaking up slightly more on issues of incredible importance, and Eddie insists the sky will fall if she does so
Hunter Peterson
>So even if you considered the codified legislation that restricts the Monarch's power to be legitimate No codified legislation HAS restricted the Monarchs powers to what we currently have. Precedent has. Her Prerogative powers are still legal IN THEORY.
>The Queen's constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Sovereign's hands. They include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances The Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts Ministerial advice about the use of these powers if it is available, whether she personally agrees with that advice or not. That constitutional position ensures that Ministers take responsibility for the use of the powers.
>do you still deny that the monarch has power? She has more power than you and I, but not the constitutional role she is meant to fulfil.
Henry Walker
Why are you advocating for such a meaningless thing? The Queen has spoken up in defence of the Church of England many times amongst other things. What I'm arguing for is the return of the Monarch to her constitutional position which has unbalanced our system and given parliament ultimately supremacy. An electorate, aka a collection of divided voting blocs, is the only thing parliament is answerable to in this country.
Ethan Smith
Hospitals are super busy because of the hidden tranny class. There are loads more than people think, and many get health complications. Hormones are serious business.
Isaiah Williams
This place is so fucking retarded. I'm going back to shit posting. I really do hate the vast majority of posters here. You're fucking retards.
Grayson Russell
>when you're so stupid you get blown the fuck out by anonymongs regularly
Luke Rivera
Not an argument
Angel Scott
...
Cameron Turner
Appointed by God.
Xavier Moore
Neither of you responded to my argument.
Sebastian Rogers
Which one? The one where you say that the monarch doesn't have as much power as they used to (and are supposed to)? I agree
Adam Cook
*invades ur country*
*rapes ur women*
*installs sharia courts*
*bombs ur children*
*throws acid in ur face*
Josiah Anderson
You're explaining the car to people who can't grasp the wheel.
Kevin Williams
Maybe it's a self-driving car?
James Moore
You already gave your stupid analogy.
But why am I replying to you? It's like explaining the car
to people who refuse to grasp the wheel
Lucas Morgan
>"The physician who performed his autopsy stated that his body "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."
Lucas Turner
You're just embarrassing yourself more than anything.
Sebastian Martinez
Why doesn't she seem to care that her country is being raped by Islam and Africa?
Julian Nguyen
Where's Rimmer? You looking forward to the match? 16/17 was the highpoint for you. This season is going to be more like 15/16 and today is going to show it.
Levi Watson
Will you and Eddie even last another year here? doubtful
Landon Thomas
You still haven't given me a convincing reason the queen shouldn't be more politically active.
>inb4 "muh precedent"
How's that precedent worked out for us the last half century?
Jace Phillips
No one man should have all that power.
Carter Long
>How's that precedent worked out for us the last half century? It's comments like this that make me think you're retarded. If you can't understand the legal significance of precedent in our system then it's impossible to even begin speaking with you on matters like this.
Andrew Cox
The monarchy are appointed by God and are descendants of Odin
Brayden Martin
"precedence" is the adult version of saying "but he did it too and didn't get in trouble"
>In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts[citation needed]. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis.
That's from the first paragraph of wikipedia, if any of you had any interest in this topic at all, you'd atleast know this which is why this is a pointless discussion.
