My government’s overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses, as the British economy recovers from the global economic downturn. Through active employment and training programmes, restructuring the financial sector, strengthening the national infrastructure and providing responsible investment, my government will foster growth and employment. My government will also strengthen key public services, ensuring that individual entitlements guarantee good services, and will work to build trust in democratic institutions. My government will seek effective global and European collaboration through the G20 and the European Union to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit next month. The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to our visit to Bermuda and our state visit to Trinidad and Tobago and to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in this, the Commonwealth’s 60th anniversary year. We also look forward to receiving the president of South Africa next year. My government will continue to reform regulation of the financial services industry to ensure greater protection for savers and taxpayers . Legislation will be brought forward to enhance the governance of the financial sector and to control the system of rewards. As the economic recovery is established, my government will reduce the budget deficit and ensure national debt is on a sustainable path …
@steamingpoopfart That is legally and actually false. In fact a good list of the Queen’s Royal Prerogatives is listed by ‘AnonymousWhitePers’ under ‘Highest Rated Comments on this page. The Power’s wielded by the PM are the Queen’s actual powers, so you are in effect saying that the PM’s stopped having any power in 1960. The PM never had any power; when he is named HM’s Prime Minister the Monarch bestows on the PM the routine exercise of the Monarch’s Powers, which is what a UK PM wields.
the britsh queen stoped having any power in 1960
This is good place to start – A brilliant interview with one of the greatest researchers ever, Professor Antony Sutton, the author of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, where he showes how bankers, businessmen and politicans in the west supported and financed both the communist and the nazis, all according to their hegelian dialectic plan for world control. PLEASE WATCH Antony Sutton – Wall Street & Bolshevik Revolution Part 1.flv .
i live in autralia, but i need yu help now, please save my life from, it is huge corruption in all australia between the government and the police and the courts, now the government with the police like to kill me by using X Ray spy camera working by the radiation, those spy cameras can see the skeleton and to see me nicked all the time, they all the police with the government trying to humiliate me and torturing me to kill me to hide all this corruption from the public, even the governor knows
@zacharytrespass Yes but the Crown Jewels belong to the State.
not to bash cause i love the queen, she is precious. its just some good lolz that she is talking about the economy being in the crapper as she wears a good couple million on her head lol
not to bash cause i love the queen, she is precious. its just some good lolz that she is talking about the economy being in the crapper as she wears a good couple million on her head lol
not to bash cause i love the queen, she is precious. its just some good lolz that she is talking about the economy being in the crapper as she wears a good couple million on her head lol
Is the Queen is apostate? has the Queen mocked GOD by failing in her duty bound Oath to defend the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL as per her promise in 1953 on the Great BIBLE?
the aborted babies the sexual perversion the growth of Islam all signed into LAW by her art testimony against her May GOD ALMIGHTY HAVE MERCY ON HER SOUL
watch?v=SwAro-9Z36g
@JuanMacready That is a common belief and it is legally and actually waffle.
@Kampfer1445 The Queen only has power in theory, in reality she could never do anything.
@JuanMacready That is a common perception, and it is completely false. You need to actually research the Royal Prerogatives, because you are trying to bluff this issue, and it is clear that you don’t understand the issue.
@Kampfer1445 The Queen has no power at all, she only has a ceremonial role. The last British monarch to have any power was William IV (1830-1837).
@JuanMacready You are obviously talking about Sweden, because your claims are irrelevant to the system of government and the laws of the UK. The claims you have made are demonstrably false and have no legal or actual basis. The Armed Forces swear no Oath to Parliament and are not bound to follow its dictates; only the orders of the Monarch or her appointed Ministers have any legal authority over the armed forces. The UK Parliament has no power whatsoever; the Queen controls the Army, RN and RAF.
@Kampfer1445 Parliament controls the army. The Queen has no power whatsoever.
Your claims have no basis whatsoever. The Royal Prerogatives are a constitutional fact in Great Britain defined by the 1689 Bill of Rights. You appear to have grossly misunderstood the contents of the Bill. With regard to military affairs the only limitation on Royal Prerogative is that the monarch can not raise (new) armies or use the Army against the populace when not at war. Nevertheless the Monarch can declare war so that constraint is limited. Parliament has never had control.
@Kampfer1445 Parliament has controlled the armed forces since William III signed his rights away in 1989. No British monarch has had any power at all since 1834.
Such a claim is also an inherent misunderstanding of the military oath. Armed Forces are not controlled by any group or person they have not sworn allegiance to; the US military swears allegiance to the Constitution and therefore obeys its statute to take orders from the President; it is thus controlled by the President. The UK Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown and thus are only controlled by the Crown or (in general) by her appointed ministers. They are not bound to Parliament.
Parliament does not control the armed forces. The PM and his cabinet do through the exercise of the Royal Prerogatives and Parliament can not hold the government to account in areas covered by the Royal Prerogatives. The monarch delegates the exercise of her powers to ministers appointed by her; she does not lose them and can exercise them personally. She appoints all ministers of the cabinet specifically to exercise the prerogatives IN HER NAME; the powers remain organic to the Monarch.
@Kampfer1445 Parliament controls the armed forces, and has done since 1689.
@Kampfer1445 The Queen has no power at all. No British monarch has had any power since William IV.
No one mentionaed anything about an insane Monarch. I was making the point was that the Royal Prerogatives are actual powers of the British Monarch that Parliament can not in fact prevent the exercise of. I also made the point that Parliament could not actually govern without the consent of the Monarch. The British Monarch is the most powerful Head of State in the Western World. The only things she can not do is raise or levy taxes or pass legislation, those are Parliament’s only organic powers.
@Kampfer1445
This scenario is very unlikely as there is such a deep routed culture of democracy in the UK.
As I said, what the military would do in such a situation depends entirely on the circumstances. The armed forces would side with democracy over a monarch who went ‘nuts’. They could justify this action by saying that the monarch had broken the coronation oath.
The Monarch exercising his/her own powers would not be removing democracy from the UK, it is the Monarch’s legal right to exercise those powers. It is after all her Realm. You stated that Parliament would refuse to allow the Monarch to exercise their Royal Prerogatives; that would be illegal and there is no reason to suppose that the armed forces would support Parliament in such an illegal course of action; that would be a violation of their Oath.
@Kampfer1445
It would depend on the circumstances. If the monarch had removed the PM and parliament because they’d become tyrannical, I think the military would support the monarch, as would I. But I would expect an immediate general election would follow.
The Queen swore an oath to respect the laws and customs of the UK, including democracy. The military wouldn’t support a monarch who removed democracy from the UK. If the Queen broke her oath the military would be entitled to break theirs.
So great to see these wonderful, thoughtful comments about my book. Thanks!