Will Brown give Argentina the Falklands?
Poll: Will Brown give Argentina the Falklands?
Total Members Polled: 527
Discussion
JonRB said:
Perhaps, but you completely fail to address the point of mine that you're quoting. I'm sure the Queen has class, integrity, respect and gravitas. But all those are largely irrelevant in this particular case; would she see it as an acceptable risk to test-case her notional titular power against parliament? I suspect not as everyone concerned knows that the monarchy are a Paper Tiger.
I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 26th March 09:49
BiggusLaddus said:
JonRB said:
Perhaps, but you completely fail to address the point of mine that you're quoting. I'm sure the Queen has class, integrity, respect and gravitas. But all those are largely irrelevant in this particular case; would she see it as an acceptable risk to test-case her notional titular power against parliament? I suspect not as everyone concerned knows that the monarchy are a Paper Tiger.
I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 26th March 09:49
s2art said:
BiggusLaddus said:
JonRB said:
Perhaps, but you completely fail to address the point of mine that you're quoting. I'm sure the Queen has class, integrity, respect and gravitas. But all those are largely irrelevant in this particular case; would she see it as an acceptable risk to test-case her notional titular power against parliament? I suspect not as everyone concerned knows that the monarchy are a Paper Tiger.
I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.I have no doubt in my mind that there is legislative contingency for pulling a monarch's teeth should they try and throw their notional weight around.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 26th March 09:49
Also I believe that in theory the government cannot force a monarch to abdicate but can only advise it as in theory they work for her not the other way around, so there is no constitutional imperative for any action she takes to lead to abdication. Governments would merely use the leverage of mass resignation to force the case if needed.
BiggusLaddus said:
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.
Never read the abdicate bit. It would cause a constitutional crisis though, and it would probably end the monarchy in its current form within 20 years.odyssey2200 said:
mybrainhurts said:
I can imagine the Argies crossing out Falklands and inserting Scotland, as the dumbfuk signs after scanning it with his duff eye...
would we fight to get that back?
only kidding by the way, don't get your knickers in a twist!
MrV said:
Other than the fact the islanders want to stay with us has oil been found there yet ?
My understanding is that there is oil in the area but we don't have the means to get at it.It's a also a natrual harbour in an enviromentaly hostile area, near to other areas of interest. There isn't anywhere else in that region which can be used as such.
tinman0 said:
BiggusLaddus said:
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.
Never read the abdicate bit. It would cause a constitutional crisis though, and it would probably end the monarchy in its current form within 20 years.
s2art said:
tinman0 said:
BiggusLaddus said:
As I understand it (although I can't remember where I got it from) she has an absolute veto that she can use on anything that is brought before her. But if she chooses to use it then she would constitutionally required to abducate.
Never read the abdicate bit. It would cause a constitutional crisis though, and it would probably end the monarchy in its current form within 20 years.It would end the monarchy, not just her reign, within 20 years because the next Labour Govt would create a Republic. The lefties would never let the "toffs" get away with it.
Chris71 said:
ChapppeRS said:
Perhaps, as has probably been mentioned, we could sell the Falklands for 500bn or so?
Hmmm. 
Suddenly the idea doesn't sound so bad after all.
The question is, would the potential oil revenue for British firms exceed that?
Chris71 said:
ChapppeRS said:
Perhaps, as has probably been mentioned, we could sell the Falklands for 500bn or so?
Hmmm. Suddenly the idea doesn't sound so bad after all.
The question is, would the potential oil revenue for British firms exceed that?
It's pretty remote unfortunately, so the oil price has to be relatively high to make it economic, not only to risk a drilling program, but to set up the infrastructure to get it from the Falklands to the mainland.
That's just in the North, the South could possibly contain a whole lot more, but the conditions are worse and the sea is much deeper, increasing the risk and difficulty.
Fingers crossed though..
... I have a large proportion of my money invested in that 'potential'
ChapppeRS said:
Chris71 said:
ChapppeRS said:
Perhaps, as has probably been mentioned, we could sell the Falklands for 500bn or so?
Hmmm. Suddenly the idea doesn't sound so bad after all.
The question is, would the potential oil revenue for British firms exceed that?
Don't be so silly......who in their right mind would want to buy Wales?
Martial Arts Man said:
ChapppeRS said:
Chris71 said:
ChapppeRS said:
Perhaps, as has probably been mentioned, we could sell the Falklands for 500bn or so?
Hmmm. Suddenly the idea doesn't sound so bad after all.
The question is, would the potential oil revenue for British firms exceed that?
Don't be so silly......who in their right mind would want to buy Wales?
(No welsh peoples were hurt during the production of this posting. The odd leek perhaps, but no Welsh)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff