Stability is an oft-abused argument used by royalists. But anyway,
1> It is true that for a Bill of Parliament to become law, it has to be signed by the Queen, just like bills in Malaysia are signed by the sultan, and bills in Australia are signed by the Governer-General. This however, means nothing. The Queen is no longer part of the checks and balances that are part of the parliamentary system. Can you imagine if she refused to sign the Parliament Act? Or the Australian Federation Act?
2> I do hope that this is more of that warped humour of yours.
3> Hahahahah!
4> Although you don't seem to like Germans and the French, you forgot that they both had Royal families. Many, in the case of Germany. The Bourbon kings were no impediment to the french revolution, and certainly didnt' serve as a rallying point.
If the Queen exercised her power, she would cause a parliamentary crisis.
Irony/sarcasm - The cornerstones of British humour. This is one of the biggest differences between the nations. The sense of humour simply doesn't translate too well.
Okay, now I'm gonna crawl off into the corner and die.:) When I read the post, I brain almost burst. It tread on the other side of the fine line.
What an insanely stupid post. On the one hand you maintain that civil liberties/free speech are guaranteed under law, and on the other, you assert that the government can be trusted to to their job without these guarantees.
The whole idea is that no matter whether you trust or do not trust the Crown to save up your kiddie porn, your choices are restricted.
the typival Briton knows and trusts his fellow man.
Allow me to express my intellectual amusement about this sentence.
Are you saying that British subjects never really had a need for the Magna Carta?
Slashdot Mirror
1> It is true that for a Bill of Parliament to become law, it has to be signed by the Queen, just like bills in Malaysia are signed by the sultan, and bills in Australia are signed by the Governer-General. This however, means nothing. The Queen is no longer part of the checks and balances that are part of the parliamentary system. Can you imagine if she refused to sign the Parliament Act? Or the Australian Federation Act?
2> I do hope that this is more of that warped humour of yours.
3> Hahahahah!
4> Although you don't seem to like Germans and the French, you forgot that they both had Royal families. Many, in the case of Germany. The Bourbon kings were no impediment to the french revolution, and certainly didnt' serve as a rallying point.
If the Queen exercised her power, she would cause a parliamentary crisis.
Okay, now I'm gonna crawl off into the corner and die. :) When I read the post, I brain almost burst. It tread on the other side of the fine line.
The whole idea is that no matter whether you trust or do not trust the Crown to save up your kiddie porn, your choices are restricted.
the typival Briton knows and trusts his fellow man.
Allow me to express my intellectual amusement about this sentence.
Are you saying that British subjects never really had a need for the Magna Carta?