Cabinet Applauds Smokescreen !!!

doofer said:
You'd only need a Spokesman/Woman, even the Prime Minister could act as one, hell, even Boris could do it. :D
Click to expand...

you really want an elected person to be the voice of the UK and be an emissary and negotiator?
Sorry but an elected person will be rubbish, the royals are trained from birth, meet the world leaders from birth, are respected around the world and do there job amazingly. This simply can not be replaced.

There estate is not ours, it was given to them before any of us was born. You can't just take it of them. They do a huge amount of good and they bring in loads of tourists, one of a few countries with a monarch remaining and a great history.
 
doofer said:
The Crown Estate originates from a deal with (Mad) King George who did a deal with the Country as he was broke, the Crown Estate at the time was making very little 'profit'. It is not a 'Tax' it is GIVEN, it is money neither owned by the Monarch or the Govt. it belongs to the 'People', managed by a Board appointed by the Monarch, it is a legacy of Feudal times, don't be in any way fooled that this is a Tax freely given by the Queen.
Click to expand...
The Queen agreed that the Royal Household should pay tax in 1992.

Why are the UK Royals the most expensive Royal Heads of State to keep? Something like £44Million costs for State duties, compared to the Spanish Royals £7Million.
Click to expand...
Probably because barely anyone gives a damned about the Spanish Royal family, or many others for that reason, but a hell of a lot do give a damn about our Royal family, which is why they have an awful lot more official engagements to attend.
 
platypus said:
Indeed, whereas you are the paragon of logic and debate. I defer to your logical superiority :).
Click to expand...

platypus said:
I'm fairly sure someone so capable as yourself can manage looking up our Parliamentary doctrine, Royal Prerogatives, Parliamentary constitutional conventions, statutes, laws, court judgements and treaties, rather than trying to catch someone out on an internet forum in a technicality. The lack of a codified or de facto constitutional document does not constitute, ahem, the lack of a constitution.
Click to expand...

Re the first quote, touche. Your best thrust so far. Alas, I claim neither to be a paragon of logic and debate nor claim to be logically superior. If I did my reply to you would simply have been, "Many a true word spoken in jest". In many ways this whole thread was really about the fact that when people respond to something in a manner that is inconsistent with the norm then there must be a reason for it. Both you and I know that the engagement/wedding undeniably offers some political advantages to the Cabinet. This being so why do you find it utterly impossible to accept that it may have been recognition of that factor which gave rise to the somewhat OTT reaction of the Cabinet? You truly do appear to exclude that possibility without the slightest logical grounds for doing so. Certainly if you can provide logical grounds for excluding that possibility then I would more than willingly cede my position. Until you do that I cannot. Such is not a paragon of logicality, it is surely merely fundamental logic.

Re the second quote, I was not attempting to catch anyone else on a technicality. But if someone asks me if I have read something inherently suggesting that it is as easy to grab en bloc as say, the Bible, then I surely have the right to challenge that inherently false suggestion, do I not? It certainly suggests that the person asking the question has not read it. In all honesty would you yourself even describe the Monarch as the State in the way the peep did? I think not. I did not challenge the peep on that though because I felt that such might have just been semantics.
 
David Cameron just said the Cabinet cheered and banged the table when news of the Royal Wedding came out today. I bet they did !!!
Click to expand...
Have you a source for this?

Besides, I haven't actually commented on whether or not this news was celebrated in rather over the top fashion because it is fortuitous for the cabinet. I haven't actually offered an opinion on that, so you're either reading something that isn't there or trying to put words into my mouth. The main point of my initial post was that the analogy of the Royal Family owning land all over Britain being akin to the situation in Israel is quite frankly balls, and I still stand by that :).

Yes, I think the comment "The Queen IS the state" was somewhat over zealous.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of whatever debate seems to be ongoing, I think it's great to have something possitive in the news for once - good for them :)
 
amigafan2003 said:
But the Queen IS the state.

Have you even read our constituion?
Click to expand...

Clearly you were suggesting that the Monarch is the State and that I should know that if I had read the constitution.

You then apparently somewhat belatedly directed me to the document you were talking about.

amigafan2003 said:
Look, just becuase our constitution isn't codified into one single article doesn't mean we don't have one. Stop being lazy and do some research.

I'll give you a starter for 10:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Edit: - Platypus beat me to it, and did so in a much more eloquent manner I!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your starter for ten. But even with that help I still cannot find the bit you were obviously referring to where it says that the Monarch ISthe State. The bit you were obviously suggesting that I had missed.

As I said to Platypus I did not pull you up on it. But now that you appear so adamant then perhaps you can help and point me to the bit in our constitution where is says even indirectly that the Monarch ISthe State.

I'm sure Google will be your friend yet again. :)

Many thanks in advance.
 
D.Roberts said:
Royal Wedding.....Who gives a Royal Crap.
Click to expand...

Not you, apparently, so we better sort it out so that it stays out of the public eye. We better notify the press that you don't care, so they can stop publishing anything about it. I'll call the BBC and Channel 5. Any volunteers to call ITV and Channel 4? Has anyone got free international minutes on their phone? We're going to have to ring round every other country that has a press industry or broadcasts TV, just in case D.Roberts goes overseas in the next year and happens to see anything in the foreign papers or on their news.

I think that about covers it. Have I missed anything?
 
vonhelmet said:
I find it hard to believe that the tourism revenue generated is anything less than this, and that's before you get into the charitable work.

Besides, it's like sub-70p per person. Who cares.
Click to expand...

That's not the point, there have been plenty of government contracts cancelled or reduced in value that would bring in more revenue to the treasury than would have been spent. The new government has one priority only - to cut spending.

I saw a prediction that the wedding would cost around £200m, not £44m. Charles' and Diana's wedding cost £30m back in the '80s.
 
vonhelmet said:
I find it hard to believe that the tourism revenue generated is anything less than this, and that's before you get into the charitable work.

Besides, it's like sub-70p per person. Who cares.
Click to expand...
In addition to this, the Queen repays the Parliamentary annuities, the Royal Family pays tax exactly the same as everyone else, only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have a Memorandum on Taxation which gives them some special breaks, but otherwise are subject to VAT, income, capital gains and inheritance tax.

Still, this is going somewhat off topic..

scorza said:
I saw a prediction that the wedding would cost around £200m, not £44m. Charles' and Diana's wedding cost £30m back in the '80s.
Click to expand...
£200m? Clearly ********. How about, rather then speculating how many bazillions the Royal Couple to be is going to **** down the aisle whilst the Queen pulls wads of cash out of her wazoo to slap on the Duke of Edinburgh's naked body, we wait and see: a) how much it is going to cost, and b) how it is to be funded? People are merely taking affront for the sake of taking affront.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
That's not the point, there have been plenty of government contracts cancelled or reduced in value that would bring in more revenue to the treasury than would have been spent. The new government has one priority only - to cut spending.
Click to expand...

A wedding is a one off expense, by its nature, so it's a bit different to whichever projects you have in mind.

scorza said:
I saw a prediction that the wedding would cost around £200m, not £44m. Charles' and Diana's wedding cost £30m back in the '80s.
Click to expand...

The £44m quoted is the annual cost of the royal family; it's nothing to do with the wedding.
 
platypus said:
Have you a source for this?
Click to expand...

DC was live on BBC TV outside No.10 and that sound bite was played everywhere over and over ad nausea on TV and the radio that day. I am surprised you hadn't/haven't heard it. I'll try to find a link later but I'm sure other peeps will confirm it in the meantime.

He also made another statement that made me chuckle a little. He said that he had spoken to Wills and that, "Wills was also very excited by the News." The way Cameron said it truly was as if Wills had only just heard about it and it had been news to him too. :)
 
VFM Addict said:
DC was live on BBC TV outside No.10 and that sound bite was played everywhere over and over ad nausea on TV and the radio that day. I am surprised you hadn't/haven't heard it. I'll try to find a link later but I'm sure other peeps will confirm it in the meantime.
Click to expand...
I haven't had radio or television access since Friday.
 
vonhelmet said:
A wedding is a one off expense, by its nature, so it's a bit different to whichever projects you have in mind.
Click to expand...

It's still an expense that will contribute to our deficit. The loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that got canned was for £80m. IMO it would be totally unacceptable if extra budget was found for the Royal Wedding - the cost must be paid for in part by cuts to the civil list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom