What's the monarchy for?

noseall said:
You have yet to show how you or anyone else has been affected.

I'll wait.....
Click to expand...

Do you have a definition for "affected"?

Are innocent people in westernised nations affected by Muslims driving lorries into them?

Are the taxpayers in the UK affected when their money is used by the Government to fight a court case when they've acted illegally?
 
morqthana said:
Do you have a definition for "affected"?
Click to expand...
The democratic harm you claimed that has been imposed upon the UK people. Explain it? Quantify it?
morqthana said:
Are innocent people in westernised nations affected by Muslims driving lorries into them?
Click to expand...
Yes. Strange unrelated analogy but yes.
morqthana said:
Are the taxpayers in the UK affected when their money is used by the Government to fight a court case when they've acted illegally?
Click to expand...
Not particularly no. Better analogy and has at least pointed you in the right direction.

I look forward to you explaining this democratic harm you imagined.
 
noseall said:
The democratic harm you claimed that has been imposed upon the UK people. Explain it? Quantify it?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to have been "imposed upon the UK people"?

I have explained it - you simply don't agree that having unelected people as lawmakers, and an unelected head of state interfering with or blocking laws being debated in the chamber of elected lawmakers is undemocratic.

I don't see how any amount of "explaining" is going to shift your opinion so that you are no longer in favour of unelected lawmakers and secret interference by an unelected head of state.

And why does it have to be "quantifiable"?


noseall said:
Yes. Strange unrelated analogy but yes.
Click to expand...

It is neither strange nor unrelated.

noseall said:
Public opinion was behind him at the time and that's a powerful motivator. Most people thought we were doing the right thing at that time.
Certainly, no one realised that attacking Muslim nations would have the result we have today i.e. disaffected Muslims driving lorries into innocent people in westernised nations.
Click to expand...

Of course we will never know if, or how, things would have gone differently, but a Bill was introduced which would have meant that Blair could not just have decided to go to war in Iraq - it would have to have been debated and agreed by Parliament.

The Queen refused to allow that Bill to be debated, and that was that. Blair was then able to go to war without the agreement of Parliament.


noseall said:
I look forward to you explaining this democratic harm you imagined.
Click to expand...

I refer you to what I said above. You either agree that unelected lawmakers and secret interference by an unelected head of state are good things, compatible with democratically elected government, or you don't.

I don't. You do.
 
noseall said:
No 'tangible' harm. Just as I thought.
Click to expand...

Unelected lawmakers. Perfectly democratic.

Unelected head of state secretly instructing Parliament to do what they want and refusing to let them do what they don't want. Perfectly democratic.

OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ebee
Posted on another forum ---- interesting or what ?
Replies
2
Views
2K
ebee
ebee
Back
Top