Probably more genetics - my grandad is similar age to the queen and his dad almost made it to 100.
Queen Elizabeth II has passed away - keep posts civil and respectful
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Probably more genetics - my grandad is similar age to the queen and his dad almost made it to 100.
Soldato
Lizard people bro. Its the lizard blood....
Easier to live long when you have no money worries, an active lifestyle, constant top tier medical attention and high quality healthy food cooked for you three times a day
look how Boris gets on, on his healthy food - the most unhealthy European leader ?,- health issues obviously in Angelas retirement,
conversely Rishi a bit more healthy karate (lol) even Putin in his day.
when you think she/Q could have retired to Balmoral years ago though, and handed on the baton, Charles doesn't exactly look young sitting in the HoL to take on the role,
there is a selfish aspect on the Queens part, most parents would want the best for their children.
conversely Rishi a bit more healthy karate (lol) even Putin in his day.
when you think she/Q could have retired to Balmoral years ago though, and handed on the baton, Charles doesn't exactly look young sitting in the HoL to take on the role,
there is a selfish aspect on the Queens part, most parents would want the best for their children.
Soldato
Her kids are total muppets and, I hear, she recognised that Charles would **** things up. Protecting both him and the country.
Soldato
Her Maj (with respect) looks quite chipper at the Royal Windsor show. Horses she likes, politicians she can probably do without at 96.
Soldato
Looking a bit frail but chilled at Windsor, watching the horses from the front seat of a Range Rover. Liz will still be with us for the Jubilee bank hol in a few weeks time. 
Parliament is supreme. If Parliament passes a law then there's nothing she can do about it.
Soldato
No.There was a civil war in this country a few hundred years ago that rather put the dampener on a sovereigns powers.
Man of Honour
Theoretically yes, in practice no. The monarch hasn't formally used royal power since 1708 and that was a far more serious situation and one that was solely internal to the UK. I've no idea when the last time anything involving other countries was decided by any monarch of any of the British countries.
The most that the Queen might do is discreetly and privately inform him that she doesn't approve. If she doesn't approve, that is. Maybe she does approve.
Soldato
1975 Australian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia
In theory yea but also occasionally its still a factor. We're about to take over admin of a failed government I read (apparently not occurring right now), thats our gov but also the Queen as head of state via terrority etc. The problem with Charles is the idea he doesnt quite get the light touch balance. I wouldnt want a president personally, I prefer we can dismiss the PM far more easily
How can UK Parliament do something illegal? It is sovereign. Do you get that? There's nothing above the government that can say they are doing something "illegal".
The EU, WTO and rest of the world in general say hi.
None of them are above the UK parliament, do you understand? As far as the UK is concerned the EU, WTO, UN, every other country has zero say over what the UK does. We are sovereign. it's actually hilarious how you're broadcasting your complete lack of understanding of this.
Britannia rules the way!
The ruling they are looking to change is how we (the UK) permit goods to travel in and out of Northern Ireland for goods intended to be used only in NI, not on goods intended to be shipped to the EU or rest of the World. If I understand it correctly, the UK Government has asked for this rule to be reviewed and basically the EU said "no way, ever, unless its on our terms".
So yes, in this case it is absolutely a sovereign decision. NI is part of the sovereign state, not an EU state (it's not even considered an independent nation unlike Scotland, England and Wales).
For the record, I am not passing judgement on whether Boris is doing a good or a bad thing - I don't have the experience to comment. But regardless it is an internal change (for example Poland recently deciding to ban abortions - that was an internal country decision, not an EU one).
we have a law that says we will follow international law .. so if we sign up to a brexit treaty under it's jurisdiction, and infringe that, we are illegal.
Might be interesting what sanctions other countries could take against uk for breaking international law.
The Queen , like keir starmer could say this nip legislation can't be passed as it is illegal,
(nicolas sturgeon seems to think it is open season on laws though following in boris's footstep)
UK Parliament creates laws that the UK Government follows, that's it. Period. There is no one above UK Parliament as far as we are concerned. In your post you've put "if we signed up to", you see how that is a voluntary agreement and not a law?
Commissario
You try as a country to break your "agreements" with other countries and see how well it works out for you long term...(oh, whoops we're doing that now)
One of the reasons the UK and the US have tended to get good international deals and treaties is that we've typically shown in the past that we'll stick to our side of the deal even if it's at times inconvenient for us in the short term (especially if it means slightly longer term we get something we want/it makes things easier overall)
Once you get a reputation for not adhering to the treaties and agreements you've signed up for, you tend to find that it'll become impossible to get such good ones in the future.
This is basic international trade/law, and only countries run by idiots think that they can do international trade etc easily once they've started breaking their treaty obligations, even if you wave your hands, change your internal law and declare "see we're not breaking our laws."