A DIAMOND QUEEN!
By David Vance On February 19th, 2012
-
THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM 
You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY. -
ABOUT THIS SITE 
-
She deserves a round of applause.
God Save the Queen
The worst monarch in 1600 years of English history.
Rubbish.
George IV wins by a mile.
She deserves a rope. I’m opposed to the death penalty because I consider it impossible to prove a capital crime beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there’s no doubt: she’s betrayed this country and its people every chance she got.
shame on you Allan
Outrageous comment. Long to reign over us.
this is my Idea of a queen
I just liked the image!
Peter -
George IV was a drug addict, an alcoholic, a recluse and quite possibly mad. Even then he wouldn’t have willingly signed away the sovereignty placed in his trust and he wouldn’t have betrayed his subjects by acquiescing to the complete colonisaton of his kingdom by millions of hostile aliens.
She took an oath – she swore it – to defend this country’s sovereignty and to retain its sovereign powers and liberties. She has reigned over the dissolution of this nation and its absorption into Europe as nothing more than a province. That surely cannot be disputed because these are matters of established fact – her signature is on the treaties which dissolved this country. Btw, Edward Heath was told by the founders of the EU that the UK would ultimately have less power than a constituent state of the United States, and I find it highly unlikely that the queen was unaware. But, in her possible defence, her educational records are kept very secret. Perhaps Peter Sellars was using her as a role model for his gardener in the film Being There.
Elizabeth Saxe-Couburg-Gotha-Rubberstamp knew all along. Nothing was kept from her.
It’s reasons like this that I hate Pete and Allan. Making me defend the Queen for Christ’s sake.
There has been no transfer of sovereignty to the European Union. There has been a transfer of power and decision making to the European Union. Sovereignty is still reserved for the Queen-in-Parliament. If the Queen-in-Parliament decides to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act then there isn’t a bloody thing that the EU can do to stop them. That is the definition of sovereignty.
Worst English monarch ever has to be Charles I,Henry VI or Edward IV.BTW the English are not impressed with this fawning,they find it pathetic
-She deserves a rope-
Oh for Christ’s sake
good for you Seamus
Seamus is perfectly correct and of course Pete and Allan know that.
Sorry but I have to agree with Allan. Not been a great success. Sorry Madge.
Oh don’t be so hard on her she’s just a wee old pensioner, (albeit one born into fabulous wealth & privelege). She has no political power whatsoever.
If you want to have a go at something have a go at the archaic, medieval institution mumbo jumbo that she was supposedly ordained by some God, the institution that makes you an inferior ‘subject’ and not a citizen.
Paul
The people of North Korea are citizens. Are they freer than us mere subjects. ?
So allegedly being a citizen under a dictatorship make institutionalised inferiorty okay Colm?
Paul
What matters is the totality of how a country operates. Are the prosperous peaceful civilised and stable people of Denmark ,Holland, Sweden and Norway less free than the people of Greece ,Albania, Romania and Slovakia for example just because the people of the latter countries are citizens of republics as oppose to Subjects in Constitutional Monarchies.
80% of the legislation which applies to the UK emanates from the EU. The authority for the EU to have such power under the acquis communitaire was signed over by the queen – and these are sovereign powers ceded. There is no question that the queen signed over these powers because her signature is on all of the documents. She is the Head of State whilst her PM is the Head of Government. Her only defence would be stupidity as I wrote above.
If you adopt the “it’s all well that ends well” attitude Colm then the Monarchy v. a Republic debate is reduced to an academic debate.
The “Long to reign over us” comment above demonstrates the serf mentality that I’ve never subscribed to promulgated by such a system.
Paul – think of it in an Irish way, as in Long may it rain over us.
Allan
They are not Sovereign powers as Seamus clearly explains. If they were then the UK Parliament could never enact legislation to leave the EU. Is that the case ?
Paul
It’s more than academic. Constitutional Monarchy is the best and most proven method for ensuring stability, moderation and harmony when compared in general to other forms of State constructs.
The Queen didn’t sign over sovereign powers Allan. She signed over powers. There is a difference. There is nothing stopping Parliament legislating in the morning to repatriate those powers.
“Constitutional Monarchy is the best and most proven method for ensuring stability, moderation and harmony when compared in general to other forms of State constructs”
That’s a mighty bold statement Colm.
“It’s reasons like this that I hate Pete and Allan. Making me defend the Queen for Christ’s sake”
Lol — don’t hate them. I think of them as the online equivalents of that old bloke you find in every pub in the country, propped up in the corner of the bar, nursing a pint and bemoaning the world to anyone who has the misfortune to pass too near or battering people with their particular crack pot theories.
But I agree – it comes to something when you end having to defend the queen. I would be very happy for the UK to become a republic, all those absurd men in tights walking backwards and the whole hereditary nonsense. But you have to salute the queen for her service and devotion – that is impressive.
So Seamus reckons that because the queen has only signed over legislative powers that it’s OK because these are not ‘sovereign’ powers? But one of the primary sovereign powers is the ability to create the nation’s legislation, of which 80% has been signed over by the queen to a foreign body. After all, if a nation cannot create its own legislation, is it a sovereign nation?
Of course the useless monarch signed over the sovereign powers in her trust. EU law is supreme in the United Kingdom. Wherever our law conflicts with EU law, it is EU which prevails. It’s not only that 80 per cent of our laws are made by a foreign, hostile power. The settlement makes it unlawful for the British people to actually govern themselves in these vast areas. It is a de facto transfer of sovereignty.
It is sovereign law here in the same way that Supreme Court judgements are supreme in the US. Individual states can secede. This is a perfectly lawful thing to do. A state can secede from the union and become independent again, however while it is in the union it must observe law laid down elsewhere.
Individual states can secede. This is a perfectly lawful thing to do
That is an interesting position to take, Mr. Moore.
Mr Phantom -
I’m simply stating the facts. States can secede. That I hope to see states secede is another matter.
Allan/Pete
“But one of the primary sovereign powers is the ability to create the nation’s legislation, of which 80% has been signed over by the queen to a foreign body.”
“EU law is supreme in the United Kingdom. Wherever our law conflicts with EU law, it is EU which prevails.”
EU law only has standing in the UK because it is enabled by the 1972 European Communities Act. UK law is supreme because if the UK enacts legislation to say that all EU law is subservient to UK law then the EU can’t stop them. If the UK repeals the 1972 European Communities Act then there is nothing the EU can do to stop them. That is sovereign power.
Seamus
This sounds like a ” power of attorney “, that can be revoked at will?
Neither Pete or Allan have been able to disprove Seamus here and of course they won’t be able to.
Colm -
Why would I want to disprove it? I’ve said the same thing in here. No-one denies that with the repealing of the ECA the sovereign power of the EU will be expelled from our kingdom.
The point here is sovereignty, as it is. Sovereignty, by its very definition, is not divisible. It is absolute and unqualified or it is nothing. Today, our law and our liberties to govern ourselves are subservient to EU law, therefore our sovereignty has been compromised. We agree on how it can be re-gained, but for something to be re-gained it must first be lost or discarded.
Pete
You are right – Sovereignty is absolute, which of course means the right of Parliament in a Sovereign state to freely adopt legislation accepting conditions of membership of a Supranational organisation – decisions which of course that same Parliament can reverse at any time of it’s own choosing and the electorate are freely able to overturn at each and every subsequent election.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sovereignty?q=sovereignty
the authority of a state to govern itself or another state:
national sovereignty[count noun] a self-governing state
Clearly from the above, the UK has ceded the authority to govern itself because government requires laws and the ability to make such laws as necessary for governance: this authority has been incrementally ceded to the EU. Moreover, the UK is no longer a self-governing state and this is evident if one just thinks of the reality of Colm’s glib phrase below:
How could that happen? The Europhiles have taken control of all parties of government and opposition by stealth: not even the SNP would leave the EU. Opinion polls indicate a narrow majority favouring leaving the EU yet the number of MPs who reflect this majority can be counted on one hand.
One reason why we can never get more than a few explicitly patriotic MPs into the Commons is because general elections are rigged. Before we can vote, candidates are vetted and selected by the party machines. Anyone with a dangerously independent mind, anyone who cannot be expected to serve the party, is weeded out.
Sure, we can vote for other parties, but the short money scam keeps the established parties in money and the government media keeps other parties on the fringes. Most people are unaware of who stands for what and so they vote the same way their dim parents voted.
Allan
How is my statement considered glib. If that majority who oppose membership of the EU regarded it as the most important factor in their electoral decision then they could vote for UKIP or the BNP. They are not prevented from doing so. It is not compulsory to vote Lib/Lb/Con.
Colm – in the real world, people are not going to vote BNP or UKIP in sufficient numbers to bring about exit from the EU. I should have asked you in my previous post to ‘keep it real’ i.e. base your opinions on real possibilities. The only real possibilities are Labour, Labour/LibDems, Conservative, Conservative/LibDems. Those are the four outcomes possible in any British election at any given time now and forever more, and you know it. Of course, none of these real outcomes gives any prospect of exit from the EU and recovery of Britain’s
sovereignself-governing powers.So, back to the reality of elections and how an exit from the EU can be achieved – it can’t be, and that’s the point. That’s why, Colm, I consider your phrase as highlighted to be glib. But if you can provide a realistic scenario, then…
Just finished watching the 3rd part of ‘The Diamond Queen’ on BBC 1. Well done to the ‘Commie’ Beeb and Andrew ‘Marxist’ Marr for a splendid series about the best Head of State on the planet
And I think Allen that shows you why the EU isn’t that important an issue to the British people. Politicians, for the most part, are vote grabbing whores. If there was a large group of voters who could be tapped into then someone would go and get them. While the majority have an opinion on the EU, and the majority of that would probably favour withdrawal from the EU, what is clear is that the majority are not willing to back that stance with their vote. People vote on the Economy, on Healthcare and Education etc. They vote on the issues that matter to them which is why, in the grand scheme of things, most of them don’t really care that much about the EU.
Seamus – in those issues of the economy, healthcare, education etc, the EU is the most important player in all of them. If the mass of people don’t get that, and they don’t, then they deserve the Greek tragedy which will be hitting the UK very shortly.
Allan
It’s the people who are glib, not my statement…
Why is a Greek tragedy a sure thing?
The strong countries may be in the process of lasering the Greeks out, and those who remain may be stronger going forward, not weaker.
The last thing the Germans, French, Finns, Dutch want is another Greek tragedy anywhere.
The UK has huge debts in all sectors (public, private, commercial), enormous cash outflows from a permanent balance of trade deficit, little remaining industry, a money-printing habit, growing unemployment. This is what a Greek tragedy is:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100014720/greek-death-spiral-accelerates/
Greece’s manufacturing output contracted by 15.5pc in December from a year earlier.
Industrial output fell 11.3pc, compared to minus 7.8pc in November.
Unemployment jumped to 20.9pc in November, up from 18.2pc a month earlier -
and the UK is heading that way.
But then, a la Phantom, I’ll be OK because I’m doing just fine
Greek manufacturing contracted 15.5pc
Demand for worry beads or fake antiques must have really shrunk, eh?
Greece has a large-scale steelworks at Corinth and used to have heavy industry, mainly as ship construction until it was decided in the ’70′s that these were jobs to be done by Koreans, Japanese and Chinese.
That’s what happens when you have free trade.
Especially when you have free trade with countries whose workers often work for less dinero and who work twice as hard as the average Greek ever did.