Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Queen 'take control' if election creates a stalemate? (British Election)
The Guardian ^ | 05-07-2015 | Jessica Elgot

Posted on 05/07/2015 1:27:42 PM PDT by NRx

The Times and the Mirror are citing royal sources suggesting that the Queen could end up running the nation if there is no clear winner in the UK election. But does she have the power to fire or hire a prime minister?

(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Politics/Elections; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 05072015; 2015election; election2015; hrmthequeen; qe2; queen; royals; scotland; scotlandyet; uk; ukelection; ukparliament; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Genoa

Charles is a moron. His kid is the best of the bunch.


21 posted on 05/07/2015 1:53:32 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Is this supposed to be an illustration of Obama’s view of the UK?


22 posted on 05/07/2015 1:53:57 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Basically, as long as the elected government behaves in a manner some “royal” approves of, its ok? Otherwise, they can intervene?

In theory, yes. In practice, the last time a King tried to do it without an extremely good reason, Parliament decapitated him. The big control on the use of these powers is that the people would have to agree their use was justified or there would be a revolution. That means they will only be used if the situation is very serious.

That’s a shocking position to articulate in this day and age.

No, it's simply British constitutional law. That's how it works. Right or wrong, it's how the system is designed.

23 posted on 05/07/2015 1:54:43 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NRx

The Manchester Guardian really transparently hates the monarchy, don’t they? Of course they’ll print garbage that tries to undermine her position, just like they post lie after lie about Israel that they have had to retract now and again.


24 posted on 05/07/2015 1:55:33 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

In 1975, Gough Whitlam, the Aussie Labor PM, could not get the budget passed in the upper house of Parliament. So he was negotiating a loan from Pakistan to fund the government, which was patently illegal. That’s when the Governor General stepped in and summoned Malcom Fraser to dissolve Parliament. When he was given a vote of no confidence by the Labor Party, which was still in control the lower house, the GG summoned Black Rod to dissolve Parliament. Elections were subsequently held. The most interesting part of the whole episode was the demonstrations in front of Frasr’s party HQ, complete with Soviet flags.


25 posted on 05/07/2015 1:56:10 PM PDT by benldguy (Obama delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NRx


American constitution 1

Westminster system 0
26 posted on 05/07/2015 1:56:47 PM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

the queen can barely control her bladder much less the election.... besides they are a tourist attraction vestage like an appendix.... useless at the very best and should be removed when acting up.......a proud tradition of drug dealing and now climate changers still diddling with the colonies via the likes of soros and other scumbags...... why dont they just fade into oblivion...... USELESS POMP AND BAD TEETH....... THE STENCH CROSSES THE ATLANTIC


27 posted on 05/07/2015 1:58:14 PM PDT by zzwhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: benldguy
In 1975, Gough Whitlam, the Aussie Labor PM, could not get the budget passed in the upper house of Parliament.

Correct.

So he was negotiating a loan from Pakistan to fund the government, which was patently illegal.

Not quite. The loans affair (which did involve attempts to negotiate a loan from the Middle East) helped trigger the Budget Crisis of 1975 (it created the 'reprehensible' circumstances that Malcolm Fraser had said would be necessary for him to block to budget), but the loan it was after was actually intended to fund industrial development, not the general budget. Whitlam's attempt to continue governing in 1975 would have resolved around ordering the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to give the government loans and that was the illegal plan that lead to the dismissal.

28 posted on 05/07/2015 2:03:59 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NRx

We may be in for a surprise, just like when the Conservatives won in 1992 against the polls.

The first exit poll shows Tories (Cons) increasing their share of constituencies from 302 to 316 (323 needed for absolute majority).

Labour makes exceptionally bad election with 239 down from 256.

Scottish National Party up to 56

But note that Labour + SNP is still far behind the Conservatives.

This was the Ipsos MORI/GfK NOP exit poll - and we know how bad exit polls can be, so a long night to folllow....


29 posted on 05/07/2015 2:17:34 PM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Doesn’t sound like this is going to be an issue


30 posted on 05/07/2015 2:23:37 PM PDT by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Henry VIII and Bloody Elizabeth aside, the monarchy definitely lost its legitimacy in the 20th Century, as the Queen did nothing as England legalized abortion and opened England to a barbarian horde (Muslims) that is almost completely in charge.

No monarch who has sat on the throne of any country as it committed suicide should hold her head up.


31 posted on 05/07/2015 2:25:29 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

A second exit poll by YouGov has it much tighter but still with the Conservatives in the lead:

Cons 284 (-18)
Lab 263 (+7)
Liberals 31 (-25)
SNP 48 (+42)
UKIP 2 (+2)

In this poll Lab + SNP is definitely larger than Conserrvatives, but well below a clear majority (323).


32 posted on 05/07/2015 2:27:01 PM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Ha... I have a grand appreciation for quick wit, always in abundance here at FR.


33 posted on 05/07/2015 2:32:17 PM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
No monarch who has sat on the throne of any country as it committed suicide should hold her head up.

I gotta agree with you. If a monarch cannot (or will not) intervene when the long-term survival of the nation is at stake, then there is no purpose for having that monarch.

34 posted on 05/07/2015 2:36:25 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: zzwhale

What a nasty, disgusting remark to make about an elderly woman.

Did she pick your pocket or something?


35 posted on 05/07/2015 2:39:13 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ("This is a Laztatorship. You don't like it, get a day's rations and get out of this office.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
I gotta agree with you. If a monarch cannot (or will not) intervene when the long-term survival of the nation is at stake, then there is no purpose for having that monarch.

In the British system, the Monarch can only intervene in very specific circumstances. They don't apply in the cases being talked about here. Parliament had the legal right to pass abortion laws - it's not a constitutional issue and the Queen could not withhold the Royal Assent. And the idea that Muslims have taken over Britain is abject nonsense. There are enclaves in the UK where Muslims are a majority, and they have more influence than I'd like, but they are not even close to having taken over.

36 posted on 05/07/2015 2:41:47 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zzwhale
he queen can barely control her bladder much less the election.... besides they are a tourist attraction vestage like an appendix.... useless at the very best and should be removed when acting up.......a proud tradition of drug dealing and now climate changers still diddling with the colonies via the likes of soros and other scumbags...... why dont they just fade into oblivion...... USELESS POMP AND BAD TEETH....... THE STENCH CROSSES THE ATLANTIC

Were you a Lyndon LaRouch follower?

Or did you just get up on the wrong side of the bed this fine morning?

37 posted on 05/07/2015 2:42:07 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Charles is a moron. His kid is the best of the bunch.

But Charles and Camilla need a purpose in life.

38 posted on 05/07/2015 2:44:19 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Is this supposed to be an illustration of Obama’s view of the UK?”

Swing and a miss sport. That’s a retardedly false choice that I must either be an anglophile, or to espouse Obamas deranged viewpoints.

There is a realistic way to view England. Neither enemy, nor friend. Most of our history has had this relationship. In the 1920s as the naval treaty was being negotiated, the British wanted battleships sufficient to cover worldwide. They wanted the US held to a level that could not challenge them. We insisted on a different ratio.

Yes, in the 1920s it was not a foregone conclusion we would not fight someday.

In the civil war they intervened with the goal of spitting the union.
Today is the day the Lusitania was sunk. We were neutral at that time. The British demanded we not trade with Germany and was willing to sink our neutral shipping to enforce it.

Eisenhower refused to jump in when the Brits decided to seize the Suez from Nasser.

Sometimes as in WWII, and in the cold war, our interests converge. When our interests do not, they tend to try to involve us (Balkans war). Or they tend to follow their own goals no matter what it does to us. (London banking in the 2008 crisis,,, London oil speculation that lead to the huge price spike in 2007, setting us up for the 2008 crisis.)

They aren’t enemies, but their government no longer shares the values of the average American. The older people, traditional Brits do, but their government cant seem to regard us as anything but a colony that got out of hand.
That is just my observation.

I really don’t understand this anglophilia,,governmentally speaking. They are gun banners, totalitarian in speech codes (recently arrested the man who sang Kung Fu fighting song) they are solidly with the sodomites,,,,etc.

But I really liked Top Gear, and Shepherds Pie, and their Whiskey up north!


39 posted on 05/07/2015 2:54:21 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Charles is a moron.

He really isn't. He's no genius, but he's an intelligent and educated man. The media - especially the left wing media - don't like him, and have presented a complete caricature of him to people by focusing on certain things and completely ignoring others. As somebody who knows him, I hate this, I really do. He didn't ask for his role in life - an accident of birth gave him a duty and he has always tried to do his best to meet it.

His kid is the best of the bunch.

The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry are both fine men, but they are the way they are in large part because of their father. Their mother had an influence on their social conscience, their father is where they get their sense of duty, their patriotism, and a lot of other things as well.

40 posted on 05/07/2015 2:55:01 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson