Why did Brown have to 'ask' the Queen's permission to call an election ?

[HeadingNorth]

an american president can only be impeached for a fairly narrow range of offences, otherwise he's pretty much above the law, and if his party has control of both houses he'd have to do something pretty terrible to be impeached or convicted.

 

 

It's worse than that. A President who controlled both houses could, by underhanded tactics, end up controlling the Supreme Court as well and abolish elections altogether. That can never happen here, because even if you murder the first 162 people in line to the throne, you still can't decide who the 163rd will be. It's cast in stone forever.

[Truthinus]

1) You've place 'proves' in quotes, I assume, because you already know it's not true but don't want inconvenient facts to get in the way of your argument.

You are accusing me of being dishonest but I am not. I put 'proves' in inverted comas because the Royals think they own us when they don't. On the other hand if we go along with the game, they do, in effect, own us.

The Queen owns nobody;

I agree.

and virtually nothing, come to that.

I do not agree

The Crown owns a lot of property and assets, but not nearly as much as, say, the Forestry Commission, and you don't seem to be overly worked up about them.

I don't know the monetary value of the Forestry Commission but its not our monarch and it does not have the PM going to it to ask its permission for anything..

 

The Crown is no more a private wealthy individual than is the Forestry Commission; it's an office of state, and its wealth belongs to the country, not to the person currently holding the office.

What or whom are the country but the people? So where is our share of the wealth (that was "stolen through a bloodstained history of murder, megalomania and treachery")?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jewel-in-the-crown-the-curse-of-kohinoor-430100.html

 

3) It already does. Tourism brings over £85 billion a year into this country, and a large part of that is people attracted to Britain because we have Royalty and historical traditions that they do not.

Tourism is not our monarch and it does not have the PM going to it to ask its permission...

 

I would estimate that the return on the Crown's £20 billion assets is better than 100% per annum. How would you invest it to achieve an improved return?

I have no idea, I am not a money expert but an improved return for whom?

 

4)Democracy has nothing to do with being equal.

It doesn't?

Indeed, in democratic terms we are more equal than the Queen, because we get to vote and choose who governs us; she does not.

But the PM has to ask her permission? And the only parties that ever get in are merely different sides to the same coin - or hadn't you noticed? I guess not. Its all a con and even the word govern-ment actually means to control the mind.

[Truthinus]

But it is the goverment who involved us in the wars...

That's right and people don't fight wars to serve our country as to serve us the people, but fight wars on behalf of our (mis)leaders who tell us a pack of lies.

[tonkatoy]

Why did Brown have to 'ask' the Queen's permission to call an election ?

 

 

Is is because Bottler Brown is incapable of making a decision like that on his own?

[Chris_Sleeps]

also, andrew was a helicopter pilot in the falklands war

He still had a get out clause though, if he wanted it. He chose to join the Navy and when a war started he had a way of getting out. Is that equal to us? Did they go around everyone and ask them if they wanted a desk job? I admire the fact he chose to stay, i will give him that.

[harvey19]

Does this sound familiar?

I beleive the Queens uncle was killed in WW1 whilst serving in the Black Watch regiment.

[Grandad.Malky]

But it is the goverment who involved us in the wars and so why if they beleive it is right don't their sons go.

 

Do you know that no politicians have family serving in the forces …… here is a link for the Americans , the fact that I cant find one for the British doesn’t mean there aren’t any but don’t let that stand in the way of a

 

 

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/89071-politicians-sons-serving-afghanistan-iraq-wars.html

 

This is a higher percenatage of U.S. Politicians with sons in the military than the general U.S. population!

[HeadingNorth]

You are accusing me of being dishonest but I am not. I put 'proves' in inverted comas because the Royals think they own us when they don't.

 

The Royals don't think any such thing. They haven't done since at least the time of George I, and probably centuries before that.

 

But the PM has to ask her permission?

 

 

You didn't, then, notice that he had already announced when the General Election would be before he even attended Buckingham Palace. Does it not occur to you that maybe the asking of permission is a formality, and that she's not actually in a position to deny it?

 

What she is in a position to do is to call a General Election against the Government's wishes, if that Government is trying to abolish elections and stay in power forever. An elected President would best serve his own interest by agreeing with them; the Queen, not so.

[HeadingNorth]

I beleive the Queens uncle was killed in WW1 whilst serving in the Black Watch regiment.

 

 

Those in the direct Royal line wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a frontline combat zone; I forget who said it, but the quote was "I don't have any objection to you being killed, but I cannot risk you being captured."

[Weazel2006]

Well getting rid of the broadband tax was the last thing they should have done, it was at least innovative if not properly implemented and a little change in it might have seen it come in, instead bottler brown (i like that) and his cronies have gotten rid to try and get the vote....pretty pathetic.