Britain's "Symbolic" dictatorship

[Altai]

People are told that British "Queen" and "Royal Family" is just a symbol and she has no power on politics and the management of the country. This is a nice story for sheeps. But complate nonsense for people who search for facts. We need to search for her and her families ties in politics to understand whether or not they are "symbolic" and face with reality.

Why would someone "Symbolic" is given such huge authorization powers; 

- She can fire ministers or change their position (wow what a symbolic power)

- She can assing the prime minister. ( ho ho ho )

-  She can declare a war (uhhh )

- She is the supreme commander of the Britain.

- She can use car without a driver licence ( what a democracy) 

- She can visit another country without a passport. 

- All the swans, whales, dolphins in the seas belongs to her. (Once a Turk made her swans kabab and he was detained, not kidding) 

- She cant be judged (what a democracy) 

- Britain does not have a president, they have a prime minister. They dont have a president because they has "symbolic" "queen". 

- She can terminate the British parliament.

- She is richest in Britain and one of the richests in the World. Ofcourse "symbolically", in fact its not real golden.

- She makes 500 million fake $ per year. Symbolically.

- She has huge amount of lands all over the Britain and probably all over the other colonies. Symbolically.

- Buckingham and Windsor Palaces belongs to her. ( what a dictator)

- When she goes to another country, she rents a hotel room only to put her shoes. (I cant imagine how the room smells boughhh)

- 15.000 fake symbolic $ are spend for her private plane per hour. 

- She has a train with seven vagons costs 50.000 fake symbolic $ per voyage.


I am tired, I will update her fake symbolic life more. Please correct it if there is something wrong and add more informations. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Altai

[hot enough]

She signed away the lives of the Chagos Islanders with not the slightest sense of humanity. Evil, evil evil.

 

'Stealing A Nation' (2004) is an extraordinary film about the plight of the Chagos Islands, whose indigenous population was secretly and brutally expelled by British Governments in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for an American military base. The tragedy, which falls within the remit of the International Criminal Court as "a crime against humanity", is told by Islanders who were dumped in the slums of Mauritius and by British officials who left behind a damning trail of Foreign Office documents.

Before the Americans came, more than 2,000 people lived on the islands in the Indian Ocean, many with roots back to the late 18th century. There were thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a railway and an undisturbed way of life. The islands were, and still are, a British crown colony. In the 1960s, the government of Harold Wilson struck a secret deal with the United States to hand over the main island of Diego Garcia. The Americans demanded that the surrounding islands be "swept" and "sanitized". Unknown to Parliament and to the US Congress and in breach of the United Nations Charter, the British Government plotted with Washington to expel the entire population.
 

http://johnpilger.com/videos/stealing-a-nation

Edited August 11, 2017 by hot enough

[JamesHackerMP]

Altai, there is a difference between "power" and "authority".  If you read the Canadian constitution, in fact, there's not even a mention of the office of a prime minister (ditto Australia).  Instead, it goes on quite a bit about the Queen's Privy Council of Canada and the office of Governor-General who is to "reign" on her behalf as a viceroy.

In reality, she has no power in Canada, or in the UK, or any commonwealth realm for that matter.  What's printed on paper often has a larger truth behind it.  And in the UK, there's not even a piece of paper, at least, not a single document, that sets down the rules.  These are rules which have been growing in size and scope since 1215.

The issue of the crown possessing absolute power by the grace of god (Die Gratia Regina), was decided (more or less) in that year, when the King was forced, at sword point, to sign the Magna Carta.  Though it took a while to sink in, the power of the crown has been in recess since then, or a little after that.

Following a general election, the queen is obligated to "appoint" as PM the leader of the party that won the election, since the majority party leader is likely to command the "confidence" of the House of Commons.  That, if I understand correctly, is how parliamentary democracy works.  So the queen's "appointment" is entirely symbolic--it isn't an independent "choice" (therefore, authority, but no power).

Once this prime minister is officially "appointed" by the queen (AFTER being put in place by the voters), and he/she "recommends" the cabinet to the queen (translation: the PM tells her whom to appoint, not the other way around), the PM and cabinet ("her Majesty's Government") basically tells the queen what to do, for the most part.  Her constitutional "power" as you put it consists of three "rights": the right be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.  That's about it.  The PM can respectfully nod his head during their weekly private audience, and then go and do whatever the hell he wants to.  Ironically, the power possessed by your average president in your average presidential democracy doesn't come close to that of a prime minister if your average commonwealth realm (like UK, Canada, etc.)  But those prime ministers come and go at the whim of the electorate and party politics.

It's not an easy concept to understand, but there it is.

Edited August 17, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[-TSS-]

The last British monarch who was a tyrant and who could ignore the Parliament was the one Cromwell toppled and had him executed. When Cromwell's regime collapsed and monarchy was restored the new monarch was with much less power and with gradual loss of power the British monarch has been like it is now since the 1700's.

A marked difference to the German Kaiser or the Russian Czar who most certainly before 1918 were the only voices that mattered in their respective countries.

[-TSS-]

This coming week marks the 20th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana; so there will be a lot of meaningless stories in the media about the British royals.