FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[zurich_allan]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

You are quite wrong on a lot of this. In a number of cases in practice the Crown doesn't interfere and does things only on advice of the Prime Minister / Attorney General / Other Senior Ministers etc. However the Crown is still the head of all armed forces in the UK. Also, quite the opposite to what you asserted, if the Queen refused to pass Royal Assent on any Bill put before her rather than her having to abdicate, in fact it would be the entire Government that would resign.

If there was a serious situation such as a hung parliament that cannot be resolved, the Queen has the authority to put anybody in place as Prime Minister that she sees fit. This is a very complex situation, more than can be discussed on a forum like this.

Also, as she has Royal Immunity, if she wanted to kill you with her bare hands (assuming she had the strength to do so), there is absolutely nothing whatsoever the law could do about it - she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence - that is a power / right that would not be challenged - not even in our modern times.

I've lectured Constitutional and Administrative Law since 2007 at university, it's a hugely interesting and also difficult area to understand in full.

[FRAFPDD]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

You are quite wrong on a lot of this. In a number of cases in practice the Crown doesn't interfere and does things only on advice of the Prime Minister / Attorney General / Other Senior Ministers etc. However the Crown is still the head of all armed forces in the UK. Also, quite the opposite to what you asserted, if the Queen refused to pass Royal Assent on any Bill put before her rather than her having to abdicate, in fact it would be the entire Government that would resign.

If there was a serious situation such as a hung parliament that cannot be resolved, the Queen has the authority to put anybody in place as Prime Minister that she sees fit. This is a very complex situation, more than can be discussed on a forum like this.

Also, as she has Royal Immunity, if she wanted to kill you with her bare hands (assuming she had the strength to do so), there is absolutely nothing whatsoever the law could do about it - she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence - that is a power / right that would not be challenged - not even in our modern times.

I've lectured Constitutional and Administrative Law since 2007 at university, it's a hugely interesting and also difficult area to understand in full.

I just disagree, i dont personally see it as a two sided argument, Its near fact IMO (ironically lol) shes just a formality.

I respect your well versed in it but im purely going on what i was taught by someone who has also studied it, and whilst not at a university level teaches it too.

Always told she was not powerful, and i cant see anything proof-wise to suggest anything else.

Like you said " in a number of cases in practice the crown does not interfere" Well what im saying, that nobody seems to understand, probably through fault of my verbal reasoning , its all just a formality. Just a formality. The Queen is head of the post, revenue and customs, etc. Doesnt mean anythig other then a bit of history.

[darwin dali]

Be it as it may, at any rate, your queen over there is NO competition for me here

[F1er]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

Also, as she has Royal Immunity, if she wanted to kill you with her bare hands (assuming she had the strength to do so), there is absolutely nothing whatsoever the law could do about it - she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence - that is a power / right that would not be challenged - not even in our modern times.
)

Indeed power it is.

[FRAFPDD]

Be it as it may, at any rate, your queen over there is NO competition for me here

What the hell does "over there" mean? Your not a cowboy are you?!

[darwin dali]

Hm, Swiss chef, dunno, dunno...

[FRAFPDD]

Hm, Swiss chef, dunno, dunno...

Its probably funny to someone on here, i dont get it personally......



Im guessing your from across the pond, never would of thought it...

[darwin dali]

Hm, Swiss chef, dunno, dunno...

Its probably funny to someone on here, i dont get it personally......



Im guessing your from across the pond, never would of thought it...

Not FROM across the pond. Am Swiss and now also American

[zurich_allan]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

You are quite wrong on a lot of this. In a number of cases in practice the Crown doesn't interfere and does things only on advice of the Prime Minister / Attorney General / Other Senior Ministers etc. However the Crown is still the head of all armed forces in the UK. Also, quite the opposite to what you asserted, if the Queen refused to pass Royal Assent on any Bill put before her rather than her having to abdicate, in fact it would be the entire Government that would resign.

If there was a serious situation such as a hung parliament that cannot be resolved, the Queen has the authority to put anybody in place as Prime Minister that she sees fit. This is a very complex situation, more than can be discussed on a forum like this.

Also, as she has Royal Immunity, if she wanted to kill you with her bare hands (assuming she had the strength to do so), there is absolutely nothing whatsoever the law could do about it - she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence - that is a power / right that would not be challenged - not even in our modern times.

I've lectured Constitutional and Administrative Law since 2007 at university, it's a hugely interesting and also difficult area to understand in full.

I just disagree, i dont personally see it as a two sided argument, Its near fact IMO (ironically lol) shes just a formality.

I respect your well versed in it but im purely going on what i was taught by someone who has also studied it, and whilst not at a university level teaches it too.

Always told she was not powerful, and i cant see anything proof-wise to suggest anything else.

Like you said " in a number of cases in practice the crown does not interfere" Well what im saying, that nobody seems to understand, probably through fault of my verbal reasoning , its all just a formality. Just a formality. The Queen is head of the post, revenue and customs, etc. Doesnt mean anythig other then a bit of history.

Lol, well obviously I can't stop you believing what you choose to believe - I could tell you the grass is green and if you choose to say it's blue, there's not much I can do if you've made up your mind... All I can do is tell you that you are completely wrong... Hopefully you'll appreciate that as I say, I'm now in my fifth year teaching constitutional law to both 2nd year and honours level undergraduate students on modules that I share with one of the eminent authority figures relating to constitutional law and administrative law in the UK - he has half a dozen textbooks published on the subject covering the UK and wrote the current and last edition associated chapters on constitutional and armed forces law in the Stair Memorial Encyclopedia (THE authoritative and highest level text on Administrative law in Scotland bar none). But hey - I suppose if a 19/20 year old who isn't qualified in the area tries to tell me they're right I should forget all that...

[FRAFPDD]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

You are quite wrong on a lot of this. In a number of cases in practice the Crown doesn't interfere and does things only on advice of the Prime Minister / Attorney General / Other Senior Ministers etc. However the Crown is still the head of all armed forces in the UK. Also, quite the opposite to what you asserted, if the Queen refused to pass Royal Assent on any Bill put before her rather than her having to abdicate, in fact it would be the entire Government that would resign.

If there was a serious situation such as a hung parliament that cannot be resolved, the Queen has the authority to put anybody in place as Prime Minister that she sees fit. This is a very complex situation, more than can be discussed on a forum like this.

Also, as she has Royal Immunity, if she wanted to kill you with her bare hands (assuming she had the strength to do so), there is absolutely nothing whatsoever the law could do about it - she cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence - that is a power / right that would not be challenged - not even in our modern times.

I've lectured Constitutional and Administrative Law since 2007 at university, it's a hugely interesting and also difficult area to understand in full.

I just disagree, i dont personally see it as a two sided argument, Its near fact IMO (ironically lol) shes just a formality.

I respect your well versed in it but im purely going on what i was taught by someone who has also studied it, and whilst not at a university level teaches it too.

Always told she was not powerful, and i cant see anything proof-wise to suggest anything else.

Like you said " in a number of cases in practice the crown does not interfere" Well what im saying, that nobody seems to understand, probably through fault of my verbal reasoning , its all just a formality. Just a formality. The Queen is head of the post, revenue and customs, etc. Doesnt mean anythig other then a bit of history.

Lol, well obviously I can't stop you believing what you choose to believe - I could tell you the grass is green and if you choose to say it's blue, there's not much I can do if you've made up your mind... All I can do is tell you that you are completely wrong... Hopefully you'll appreciate that as I say, I'm now in my fifth year teaching constitutional law to both 2nd year and honours level undergraduate students on modules that I share with one of the eminent authority figures relating to constitutional law and administrative law in the UK - he has half a dozen textbooks published on the subject covering the UK and wrote the current and last edition associated chapters on constitutional and armed forces law in the Stair Memorial Encyclopedia (THE authoritative and highest level text on Administrative law in Scotland bar none). But hey - I suppose if a 19/20 year old who isn't qualified in the area tries to tell me they're right I should forget all that...

I aprecciated what you said right up until you became that which you mock, a teenager who resulted to petulance.... Poor form from a lecturer i must say.


I never tried to tell you your wrong, I also think youll find the Question at hand is ' Does the Queen have any power' whether or not you think so, telling me im wrong is totally out of order, what we're arguing is by definition a matter of opinion, i'd appreciate if youd pretend im 40 years old so that you might treat me with some common decency please. Or is that too much to ask, and so i cover my tracks... Please dont reply by worming this into being my fault, its not, ive had to waste 5 lines just trying to keep it civil because you have some sort of verbal reasoning deficiency. Also, you decided to create this topic within this thread by challenging my idea , which isnt wrong in itself, but you also said " theres no way it can be fully covered in a forum" in regards to said topic. so.........


I dont believe the Queen has any power. What your saying might be right, it is right, she can say no, and refuse to sign, and dissolve parliament, but there are lengthy processes to this not least because it is a given that she signs whatever is handed to her without fail. Politicians and the like are still asking this question, and somewhere there are the laws that say the Queen can do this and that, or only under these exceptions. She cant just willy-nilly refuse to sign and hold the country ransom cause shes the top dog in a lot of national organisations.

[FRAFPDD]

Hm, Swiss chef, dunno, dunno...

Its probably funny to someone on here, i dont get it personally......



Im guessing your from across the pond, never would of thought it...

Not FROM across the pond. Am Swiss and now also American

Thats pretty cool, no buemi love?

[F1er]

Some people NEVER learn no matter how many times proven wrong

[acosmichippo]

[darwin dali]

Hm, Swiss chef, dunno, dunno...

Its probably funny to someone on here, i dont get it personally......



Im guessing your from across the pond, never would of thought it...

Not FROM across the pond. Am Swiss and now also American

Thats pretty cool, no buemi love?

Nah, his bum doesn't compare to FM's

[bud]

I wouldn't bother Zurich Allan, that user is plain ignorant.