Good point! Its all about checks and balances and apart from the odd old bugger falling asleep in the chamber, they generally do a good job.
Ha, I was talking about the Monarchy. Happy to see the House of Lords go (may or may not need replaced) I was editing my post when you replied to it...
This exactly..Yes we have written documents that on paper make the Queen the head of state which includes the military, but in reality there has not been one single event since the reformation of the Monarchy that a reigning monarch has went against parliament regarding military action..
We've effectively got rid of the monarchy and kept it at the same time. We have the best of both worlds. Getting rid of monarchy smacks of a pre-21st century mindset.
I do tend to agree with this hence my vote to keep them....However, they should be expected to earn their substantial earnings with the work they do..If they ever lost their undoubted global appeal then I would change my stance..
Thatcher had the Royal Navy twat the General Belgrano without even cabinet approval let alone parliament or Lizzie.
That was during the war, the decision to go to war had already been taken. The government doesn't consult the Queen for every operational decision during a war.
I never said she did or didn't. I said the decision to fire on the Belgrano wouldn't have been discussed.
Falklands was slightly before my forces days but I'm pretty sure we hadn't declared war on Argentina at that time. It was a criminal act as the ship was outside the exclusion zone. It also spectacularly backfired as the Argentinian retaliation resulted in five British ships being sunk.
What is rarely highlighted by our Tory press is that the Thatcher government had lots if intelligence and warnings regarding the Argentine threat and intentions, but done sod all about it..If they had put a couple of ships in the area in the first place, then a lot of lives could have been saved..
This was reported in the guardian in 2005 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/01/argentina.military
As I said, rarely reported by the Tory press..The Guardian is one of the few that are not controlled by the Tories...
Royal Prerogative : "since the accession of the House of Hanover these powers have been generally exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who in turn is accountable to Parliament, exclusively so, except in matters of the Royal Family, since at least the time of William IV." - note the word 'advice'. Parliament does not have an absolute right (other than, as Tankmarvin said, in a time of war). The part in bold above shows the safeguards I've been talking about. It'll never be put to the test, of course. I doubt if any MP would want the right to unlawfully influence votes and undermine democracy. But the safeguard is there, just in case.
Which is exactly why a Monarch would never dream of questioning a decision made in parliament..The Royal family are nothing more than ambassadors these days, and some of them make a decent job of it...This Royal Prerogative you are bringing up is nothing more than a ritual these days, and in reality the Monarch follows the instructions given by parliament....The royal family are not elected and therefore would never dream of going against government and undermining democracy..
Almost correct : try 'in reality the Monarch follows the advice given by Parliament'. To be honest, I don't think anything Tankmarvin or myself have dug up since you refused to look into it yourself (three times) is going to sway you from your fixed beliefs, mate. Count me out of this. It's been nice chatting with you.
I'm actually quite surprised that some people think that these 'Royal Prerogatives' actually mean anything these days.. Nothing but protocol and rituals to follow.
