No, I'm not ******ed mate. But your efforts at trying to justify ONE PERSON having the overall say in things by quoting examples of things you consider to be undemocratic is ******ed. We have elections to the Westminster Parliament every four or five years. I don't remember being allowed to vote on whether there should be a King or Queen.
Oh dear the more you post the more I think you are a 14 year old kid...............read the earlier posts put on here I have put numerous links to the FACTS and if you don't like them find it yourself on the internet it's easy.
It was on This Week. cant remember the fella's name who bought it up without looking for it on iplayer
I was wondering if anyone actually read that post properly, I stand by that view 100% though, if you're not willing to eat eggs, drink milk or wear leather, you're ****ing EVIL.
And you have the nerve to call another poster a 14 year old What a gullible ****wit you are. Do you believe everything that's on the internet?
No, we have a constitutional monarchy and I just wish our monarch would actually say no when the laws being brought in are AGAINST everything that Britain supposedly espouses, freedom, the right to trial etc.
Fair point well you show me your FACTS about how much they cost and I will shut up....................you can't because I'm voicing my opinion which so happens to be the truth.......as for you Celtic fans says it all.
Well, she doesn't, and in the words of PrestonBear* why don't you **** off to a country where they do!!! * unlike that ******, I'm only joking
The £40m is bullshit anyway. i understand that the true cost of the monarchy is protected under the secrets act I also heard that when the queen travelled on BA to 'save money' they had to gut out th eplane and put a bed etc in and the bill was £165k
One unelected person with the power to veto what a democratically elected Parliament discuss and pass into law. How would that be a good thing? And who would decide what is not in the best interest of the country? You elect the government and trust them to make decisions on their behalf and if you don't like that you have the right to change your vote next time round.
Seriously stop complaining.............it's boring you have been proven wrong yet you twist your argument to try and sound right face it The Royal Family exist and always will whether you like it or not.
I have it from a VERY dependable source that the powers that be at Holyrood can tell how HMQ feels about Scottish Parliament legislation. By law, she has 10 days to sign an Act of the Scottish Parliamnent ('Royal Assent'). 1) If HMQ isnt bothered about the Act it gets signed no bother. 2) If she is dead keen on it, she signs it immediately. The ban on smoking in public places being a case in point as she was a devout anti-smoker (Actually the Smoking, Health and Social Care Act) 3) If she is agin the Act, she takes it to the wire and only signs it grudgingly at the last moment, to show her displeasure. A case in point was the Wild Mammals Act - which prohibits fox-hunting in Scotland God bless you Ma'am
On the face of it, the idea of a Monarchy that makes the country £200m ON TOP of what they cost sounds great. But: 1) Where does this money go? Schools? Hospitals? Harry and Wills' crack-whore addiction? 2) Who works this stuff out and are the figures entirely trustworthy? 3) Do the figures take into account ALL of the costs? Hurry up and answer, because I'm getting splinters in my arse from this ****ing fence.
also on the link you posted is how she's raided the civil list fund and will have to go cap in hand to the government to scrounge some more 11 million on salaries and catering tens of millions in security a 1 million pound train used just 19 times take take ****ing take. but hey, don't worry about the recession we're in, love.
The real problem with this debate is the same as most other debates, most people have fixed views and even if they knew the facts and figures (few ever do), it wouldn't change thier bigotry.
