Rights of the British

A small article I wrote, that I thought I would share with my fellow British ATS members

Rights of the British
Britain is far from democratic. An unelected individual rules the Country

Britain, my Britain how democratic are we? Do we elect our Prime Minister? Ermm...No, what about our government? We don't do that either. In fact, the monarchy appoints the Prime Minister and each member of the government.

A outdated and ignored Bill of Rights, our basic constitution is limited in preserving the sovereignty of Parliament. But the 19th Century politicians fought hard to protect the rights of the people and prevent any Monarchy influence spreading to the House of Commons. Sadly, in the 21st Century, MP's ignore it. These “Honourable Members” celebrate the Monarchy even though the Royal House is interfering in our legislative body.

Spineless members give pathetic statements each year to show how “loyal” they are to Elizabeth Windsor. How sad. Her son, Charles Windsor, loves to give political speeches and goes against a democratically elected government. Surely this violates our Constitutional Monarchy? During the days of William Pitt the Younger the House of Commons would call the King a “tyrant” for influencing the political climate of the time. What has change since then? Oh my dear readers, plenty has changed since then.

The Human Rights Act 1998 depicted the moral standards of a modern democracy. This Act has been a shine to us republicans because it use to be treason to call for the removal of the Queen pre-Human Rights Act. Life in imprisonment was the punishment (you use to get hanged for it!) for expressing and engaging in free speech.

But a republican is linked to the IRA and Sinn Fein according to the British Media. This bewildered assumption is idiotic and short-sighted because our movement has no link to the historical legacy of Irish republicanism. I am struggling to comprehend the justification of comparing British republicans to the IRA, a terrorist organisation, because it does not make sense. Scaring the public into thinking that individuals who are against the norm, is quite pathetic really. We are not terrorists. Just true patriots who believe a country should be govern by the people not some outdated, ludicrous and unethical Monarchist regime.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite
Rights of the British
Britain is far from democratic. An unelected individual rules the Country

How so? Unless of course your referring to Gordon Brown who has not got a mandate from the electorate?

Originally posted by infinite
Britain, my Britain how democratic are we? Do we elect our Prime Minister? Ermm...No, what about our government? We don't do that either. In fact, the monarchy appoints the Prime Minister and each member of the government.

Not sure if you fully understand our system, infi. Political Parties are not technically recognised in parliament, so the people never elect the Government or Prime Minister. What the people do is elect their representative to Parliament, that is all.

The Prime Minister is simply the one who can command the most support in the Commons. It won't necessarily be the leader of the largest single party, because a coalition of smaller parties could drum up more support and form a Government themselves.

The Queen doesn't appoint anyone, she merely rubber stamps the bloke who can command a majority in the Commons.

Originally posted by infinite
A outdated and ignored Bill of Rights, our basic constitution is limited in preserving the sovereignty of Parliament. But the 19th Century politicians fought hard to protect the rights of the people and prevent any Monarchy influence spreading to the House of Commons. Sadly, in the 21st Century, MP's ignore it. These “Honourable Members” celebrate the Monarchy even though the Royal House is interfering in our legislative body.

How does the Royal Family interfere? The Queen is legendary in her non-interference.

Originally posted by infinite
Spineless members give pathetic statements each year to show how “loyal” they are to Elizabeth Windsor. How sad. Her son, Charles Windsor, loves to give political speeches and goes against a democratically elected government.

So, you're all for the rights of the people in freedom of speech and what not, but in the same breath you deny those rights to members of the Royal Family?

Surely this violates our Constitutional Monarchy? During the days of William Pitt the Younger the House of Commons would call the King a “tyrant” for influencing the political climate of the time. What has change since then? Oh my dear readers, plenty has changed since then.

The Human Rights Act 1998 depicted the moral standards of a modern democracy. This Act has been a shine to us republicans because it use to be treason to call for the removal of the Queen pre-Human Rights Act. Life in imprisonment was the punishment (you use to get hanged for it!) for expressing and engaging in free speech.

But a republican is linked to the IRA and Sinn Fein according to the British Media. This bewildered assumption is idiotic and short-sighted because our movement has no link to the historical legacy of Irish republicanism. I am struggling to comprehend the justification of comparing British republicans to the IRA, a terrorist organisation, because it does not make sense. Scaring the public into thinking that individuals who are against the norm, is quite pathetic really. We are not terrorists. Just true patriots who believe a country should be govern by the people not some outdated, ludicrous and unethical Monarchist regime.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by infinite]

I fully understand we elect a representative Britain....

Appointing ministers is apart of her constitutional powers btw. She can kick Gordon Brown out if she wants.

Due to the fact the monarchy system is politically neutral, none of them should be allowed to make political speeches. Mainly Charles. We need a massive constitutional change in Britain, I like the Irish model in which the Prime Minister (Taoiseach) most be nominated by the Parliament before the Head of State confirms the appointment. However, I do admire the French system a lot.

Originally posted by infinite
I fully understand we elect a representative Britain....

Appointing ministers is apart of her constitutional powers btw. She can kick Gordon Brown out if she wants.

I'm sure you understand that whilst she may be able to do that in theory, she can't in practice. You seem to be taking the system too literally, when it's much more complex than that. Indeed, I can think of only three ways in which she would remove a sitting Prime Minister:

1) If they resigned.
2) If they lost an election.
3) If they lost a vote of no confidence in the Commons.

A possible fourth point is if the present Prime Minister was removed as head of his or her party and a successor was appointed - she could then remove the sitting Prime Minister and appoint the new party leader because he or she now commanded a majority in the Commons. However, she'd have to 'take advice' (read: be given the go-ahead from constitutional experts and advisers) before this happened.

So no, I don't think she could simply remove him even if she wanted to. A constitutional pretext would be required, and it'd have to be one of the above scenarios.