Barbados gains independence.

[Angilion]

You what now.

The agreement is the hereditary monarch gets symbolic say and only acts on the advice of the government, elected by the people.

The last time a UK monarch had any say in legislation was over 300 years ago. Queen Anne. 1707 IIRC. She vetoed one law. It was a very big deal because, as you rightly state, the deal is that the monarch just rubber-stamps anything from the government. She was right, though.

EDIT: I should point out that the monarch (one of the Williams...4th?) had a de facto say in the passing of the Great Reform Act in 1832 as they blatantly used royal power to force the act into law. But they didn't officially use royal power to do so. They didn't withold royal assent, which is what Energize was explicitly referring to. They demanded that the act be passed and forced the House of Lords (which still had some power in those days) to passing it.

 

[Diddums]

So how's Barbados doing then?

 

[Energize]

You what now.

The agreement is the hereditary monarch gets symbolic say and only acts on the advice of the government, elected by the people.

She does actually have the power to withhold assent, she failed to do so on countless occasions.

 

[Energize]

...

This nonsense is not worth a full response as you've misconstrued what I've said, and it's quite embarrassing that you're resorting to cries of racism when I've heavily criticised the Arab slavery on this forum.

"Blame whitey", you're basically a discount version of Tommy Robinson at this point, good lord.

 

[Hotwired]

She does actually have the power to withhold assent, she failed to do so on countless occasions.

What era is your mind in.

The technical ability of a monarch to block a bill is not exercised on a whim because it creates the issue of a hereditary monarch interfering with the government and only one of those parties are elected.

You have the fanciful idea of the queen blocking "bad" laws but facts are that monarchs of old exercised that power for their own interests.

For all the trash talk about the queens motivation you seem confident in her judgement in vetoing laws being passed. Then when she dies it will be Charles (maybe), William etc... no guarantees at all in competence or morals or accountability.

Monarchs have stopped arbitrarily vetoing laws from the elected government because it rocks the boat of the royal family existing at all.

If the government sucks it's because the people of the people suck. Fantasising that the monarch will interfere and hating the monarch for not interfering is a very strange way to cope with it.

 

[Angilion]

This nonsense is not worth a full response as you've misconstrued what I've said, and it's quite embarrassing that you're resorting to cries of racism when I've heavily criticised the Arab slavery on this forum.

"Blame whitey", you're basically a discount version of Tommy Robinson at this point, good lord.

I guess ignoring my response and throwing mud at me in the hope something will stick is the best option you had. You certainly had no chance of rebutting anything I wrote. Including when I quoted your own post stating something you claimed you hadn't stated.

She does actually have the power to withhold assent, she failed to do so on countless occasions.

Your position is wildly inconsistent. On the one hand, you detest the queen and blame her for everything bad that has happened in the last 70 years. On the other hand, you want her to rule the UK by decree with parliament turned into at best a council of advisors.

Incidentally, that would be far more power than any monarch of the UK has ever had in practice because back in the days when the monarch had more use of their power government was required to be far more local due to the level of technology and the fact that the upper nobility had more money and more soldiers under their personal command than the monarch did. The direct rule of the monarch only extended 12 miles in diameter (as long as the upper nobility were willing to accept it).

 

[Nasher]

Here's your quote. Direct and unaltered, of course.



You explicitly stated that Denmark abolished slavery hundreds of years before "we" did. That was what you stated. That was what they replied to. Do you even read your own posts, let alone anyone else's posts? You certainly don't read your own sources, given that you claimed India abolished slavery 2000 years ago and even the wikipedia article you cited didn't claim that. Not least because the country of India didn't exist 2000 years ago and the Maurya emperor referred to didn't abolish slavery in his empire (the very article you link to says he urged people in his empire to treat their slaves well) and there's no indication of whether his orders had any effect or lasted for any amount of time. Also, slavery existed in India until the British empire stopped it.

Your sole aim is to denigrate the UK. You're making up anything to serve that end. Including ignoring your own posts.

Incidentally, the earliest known banning of the slave trade in England dates back to the 1070s. Not 1832. But hey, why let minor details like extant historical records or any other aspect of reality get in the way of scapegoating a country?

There have been various legal restrictions on slavery in some areas at some points in time. Some of them meant something locally. Some of them meant nothing as they weren't enforced. What's a simple matter of record is that by far the most important factor in the reduction in slavery on a large scale was the British empire's full on war against slavery in the 19th century. Many Britons died fighting slavery. But you (and, sadly, many others like you) eagerly **** on their graves in your rush to denigrate the UK. Usually extremist racism too - blame whitey! - but it's not clear whether or not you're fashionably racist in that way.

It existed in Africa long before the empires arrived too. They were the ones selling their own people at ports!

The Royal navy hung crews caught transporting slaves. It was considered treason.

But all this stuff will be left out of the history re-write.

 

[Sankari]

Barbados gains independence.

Wrong. Barbados has been fully independent since 1966, at which point QEII ceased to have sovereignty over the nation. Like most independent former colonies, Barbados chose to remain in the Commonwealth.

What they did this week was switch from a parliamentary democracy to a democratic republic. Independence had nothing to do with it, and nor did the Queen.

 

[Energize]

I guess ignoring my response and throwing mud at me in the hope something will stick is the best option you had. You certainly had no chance of rebutting anything I wrote. Including when I quoted your own post stating something you claimed you hadn't stated.

I'd already addressed most of what you wrote previously, no point in going in circles.

The problem is when someone starts crying racism I switch off, especially when it has a white nationalist tinge to it. Ethnic nationalists associate nation with race so strongly that they perceive criticism of their nation to be an attack on their racial identity, the problem with this line of thinking is:

1. The British Empire was ethnically diverse.
2. White people lived outside the British Empire.
3. The actions of a nation (i.e. the interests of the elite) don't represent the average citizen.
4. The British Empire does not represent modern Britain. (which is why your suggestion that I am trying to denigrate the UK is absurd)

Which therefore makes the idea that criticising the British Empire (which for all intents and purposes hasn't existed for a long time) is someone racist or an attack on whiteness utterly ridiculous.

Your position is wildly inconsistent. On the one hand, you detest the queen and blame her for everything bad that has happened in the last 70 years. On the other hand, you want her to rule the UK by decree with parliament turned into at best a council of advisors.

Incidentally, that would be far more power than any monarch of the UK has ever had in practice because back in the days when the monarch had more use of their power government was required to be far more local due to the level of technology and the fact that the upper nobility had more money and more soldiers under their personal command than the monarch did. The direct rule of the monarch only extended 12 miles in diameter (as long as the upper nobility were willing to accept it).

If there is to be a monarch, then their duty should be primarily to protect the liberty of the citizens, giving their stamp of approval to oppressive legislation doesn't fit in with that. I don't think there should be a monarch, but the fact is there is one and they haven't done their utmost to safeguard citizens from the excesses of government. That's not an inconsistent position.

Saying I've blamed Elizabeth for everything bad that's happened is just royalist hyperbole.

 

[Angilion]

I'd already addressed most of what you wrote previously, no point in going in circles.

The problem is when someone starts crying racism I switch off, especially when it has a white nationalist tinge to it. Ethnic nationalists associate nation with race so strongly that they perceive criticism of their nation to be an attack on their racial identity, the problem with this line of thinking is:

1. The British Empire was ethnically diverse.
2. White people lived outside the British Empire.
3. The actions of a nation (i.e. the interests of the elite) don't represent the average citizen.
4. The British Empire does not represent modern Britain. (which is why your suggestion that I am trying to denigrate the UK is absurd)

Which therefore makes the idea that criticising the British Empire (which for all intents and purposes hasn't existed for a long time) is someone racist or an attack on whiteness utterly ridiculous.

I'm not at all surprised you didn't read what I wrote, replied to something completely different and ascribed your own invention to me. Since you obviously have no idea what I wrote, what makes you think you have addressed it?

If there is to be a monarch, then their duty should be primarily to protect the liberty of the citizens, giving their stamp of approval to oppressive legislation doesn't fit in with that. I don't think there should be a monarch, but the fact is there is one and they haven't done their utmost to safeguard citizens from the excesses of government. That's not an inconsistent position.

Wanting someone who you blame for everything bad to be the absolute dictator of the country is an inconsistent position unless you believe that any elected government must be even worse.

Saying I've blamed Elizabeth for everything bad that's happened is just royalist hyperbole.

Is there anything you don't blame her for? You blamed her for everything from the Suez crisis (which was 65 years ago) to Aberfan, then threw in a lie and false accusation about one of her sons for good measure, which shows you're continuing to the current day. I don't think it's "royalist hyperbole" to state "the last 70 years" when you were only explicitly referring to the last 65 years. I just didn't remember the year of the Suez crisis off the top of my head.

 

[LabR@t]

So how's Barbados doing then?

Who cares apart from tax evaders?

 

[Jean-F]

Who cares apart from tax evaders?

Oh I don’t know, it’s never appealed to me, but lots of people seem to like it.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Who cares apart from tax evaders?

Tax MINIMIZERS, please....

 

[Angilion]

Who cares apart from tax evaders?

Tax avoiders. They're tax evaders who hire better accountants, but they're completely different. Totally different. Absolutely different. Oh yes indeed. And their company headquarters really truly seriously is in the one small building that contains 47,000 other company headquarters. In a single room. Which is empty.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I like Energize best* when he goes after what I'd previously assumed was his 'type' and you can almost hear the snapback as they realise he's actually quite a complicated individual. I mean just LOL at this thread but the reactions alone were worth the admission price.

* it is a suspiciously low bar.

 

[Energize]

Wanting someone who you blame for everything bad to be the absolute dictator of the country is an inconsistent position unless you believe that any elected government must be even worse.

Right, because criticising her for a couple of events amounts to blaming her for "everything" bad, and denying royal assent (aka. tacit approval) to oppressive legislation is dictatorship.

Safeguards != dictatorship unless you are a fanatical monarchist.

 

[Angilion]

Right, because criticising her for a couple of events amounts to blaming her for "everything" bad

If you're going to contradict yourself you could at least bother to edit your posts to remove the evidence of you contradicting yourself. Not doing so and assuming it doesn't matter because you say so is arrogant.

[..] who has been stumbling her way from disaster to disaster all the way since the Suez canal [..] Thoroughly despicable woman [..]

You're not "criticising her for a couple of events". You're blaming her for everything bad (because you think she's "thoroughly despicable"). Not a couple of events. Over and over again, everything you could think of. Including other people's divorces and, of course, any and all laws you disagree with.

and denying royal assent (aka. tacit approval) to oppressive legislation is dictatorship.

Safeguards != dictatorship unless you are a fanatical monarchist.

Having a single person dictate the law of a country is pretty much what a dictatorship is. Even monarchs of the middle ages didn't actually have that much power in practice. You want the monarch to be an absolute dictator and you're calling me a fanatical monarchist. Doesn't that seem at least a bit odd to you?

What you want, of course, is a dictator who would dictate the law to be what you want it to be. Very progressive of you.

 

[Energize]

If you're going to contradict yourself you could at least bother to edit your posts to remove the evidence of you contradicting yourself. Not doing so and assuming it doesn't matter because you say so is arrogant.



You're not "criticising her for a couple of events". You're blaming her for everything bad (because you think she's "thoroughly despicable"). Not a couple of events. Over and over again, everything you could think of. Including other people's divorces and, of course, any and all laws you disagree with.



Having a single person dictate the law of a country is pretty much what a dictatorship is. Even monarchs of the middle ages didn't actually have that much power in practice. You want the monarch to be an absolute dictator and you're calling me a fanatical monarchist. Doesn't that seem at least a bit odd to you?

What you want, of course, is a dictator who would dictate the law to be what you want it to be. Very progressive of you.

Nah, I named specific events she failed in. That's not "everything".

Having checks and balances is just common sense, the US executive also has the power to veto legislation from the legislative branch, that doesn't make the president a dictator.

 

[Angilion]

Nah, I named specific events she failed in. That's not "everything".

I've already shown that's untrue by quoting your own words in the post with which you started this thread.

Having checks and balances is just common sense, the US executive also has the power to veto legislation from the legislative branch, that doesn't make the president a dictator.

The USA president can delay legislation by 10 days or return it to Congress, once. Congress can override a presidential veto. Which makes it not really a veto. The only scope for an actual presidential veto is with legislation passed less than 10 days before congress adjourns - the president can sit on it until after congress has adjourned and then veto it to an empty house.

What you want is a dictator by proxy who will make law according to your demands. That's a very different thing to the USA president's not-really-a-real-veto.

 

[Energize]

What you want is a dictator by proxy who will make law according to your demands. That's a very different thing to the USA president's not-really-a-real-veto.

What I want is no monarchy. And no, not "my demands", a constitution. Being able to veto/override laws like the unelected supreme court can doesn't make someone a dictator by any definition of the word. A dictator is someone with autocratic control and absolute power.

At the moment we have a monarch who is, according to you, already a dictator because they pass all legislation into law and can give or withhold assent as they please whilst enjoying completely immunity from prosecution for any crime they commit and is head of the justice system.

If the choice is between a malevolent dictator and a benevolent one I'll always take the latter, and I consider passing terrible laws to be malevolent.

EDIT - Also apparantly the BBC have something on iPlayer regarding the situation if anyone is interested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00122mr/our-world-barbados-road-to-a-republic

As Barbados removes the Queen as its head of state and becomes the world's newest republic, British-Barbadian Daniel Henry returns to his ancestral home to find out what islanders make of the move. From the man in charge of rebuilding parliament to England's first black cricketer, Roland Butcher, Daniel asks - why now? And does what it mean for the island's future?