Brit/pol/ - Queen Elizabeth II edition

I don't really know why I continue to be surprised at the general level of ignorance around here.

File: wouldrapesohard.jpg (82KB, 648x961px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 648x961px

First for Kuenssberg's legs and feet.

>>136344801
I just leave Brit/pol/ open and wait for a decent discussion to arise. More times than not, it never does. People here have the average IQ of an Ethiopian.

File: QI11.jpg (106KB, 708x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 708x1000px

Thread is dead today.

Haven't seen the "start buying guns" guy in a while. Maybe he threw away his tinfoil hat and realised there won't be a race war.

>>136344938
good now it matches the country

>>136345051
Lel I started that, but that wasn't one person.

>>136344850
Post like this (>>136344947) make my physically angry. People seem to just assume how things work, then assume themselves an authority on that matter henceforth.

Queen Elizabeth II is one of our worst monarchs.

>>136344801
>said the baby tier nihilist who roleplays as a cartoon superhero

>>136345124
How about you counter it you cocksucker?

deaths to all the kangz and queens , fuck MONARCHY !

>>136344947
>what was the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history

>>136344807
I just sent this bitch dick pics on Twitter and asked her out for a drink.

>>136345129
>t.Charles

>>136345212
How can I explain how a car works to someone who refuses to grasp the wheel.

Jeremy Clarkson is gonna die lads.

>>136345279
The Windsors are just generally useless, glorified celebrities.

>>136345338
Not their fault. They're piloting a plane with no fuel.

>>136345252
It's well within the monarch's power to influence public opinion you utter imbecile.

>>136345330
We're all going to die.

>>136345338
At least the bring in lots of tourist money.

>>136345329
Eddie, you aren't half retarded some of the time

File: 1502017711589.png (69KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1242x2208px

>>136345101
tripfags are dumb

>>136345329
Not an argument.

The Monarch refuses to use their power as a public figure for the greater good. Sickening.

>>136345402
i repeat
>what was the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history
and
>what did these historical events do to the constitutional position of the monarch

>>136345212
The Monarch as a whole has been in steady decline since, arguably, the civil war era but 1688 assigned the role a slow decline in which powers were more and more thrusted upon Ministers of the Crown, and acted upon by self parties. As opposed to the Monarch her/himself simply acting based off Ministerial advice, entire roles were placed upon these ministers which completely unbalanced our system. The Act of Union 1707 forbade the Crown from having any presence in any public assembly in the country, in 1708 Queen Anne withheld Royal Assent on the Scottish Militia Bill causing an outrage (even the American Revolution nearly a century later was partly blamed on this) thus it was never refused again, now it isn't even assigned in person. This steady decline peaked, probably, at Victoria whom was the first monarch in history to come to power knowing she'd have no active role in government which completely unbalanced our system.

From what you're saying, you act as though this is completely new and Queen Elizabeth herself is to blame as opposed to 400 years of history leading up until this point.

>>136345448
Because they have no power to do so as set by a 3 century old precedent in an electorate who values broken democracy over everything.

>>136345466
>The Monarch can't influence public opinion

Are you stupid lad?

>>136345330
Good

>>136345330
Fucking hope so, man's a cunt.

File: .713872520172217696841275142501247120761279612796.jpg (89KB, 587x553px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 587x553px

I wonder what the official NHS position on gender reassignment is.
I'm not thrilled with the prospect of paying for these idiots to mutilate themselves.

>>136345536
They can't directly you fucking monkey and they aren't going to reverse 300 years of political change simply by speaking up.

>>136345607
400*

File: harry.jpg (291KB, 2048x1632px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2048x1632px

>>136345380
To an extent, yes, but you cannot absolve them of all blame. You yourself have talked about how Victoria was the first to not sign Royal Perogative in person, setting a precedent that the monarch doesn't.

>>136345522
Can't help but notice Victoria did OK in spite of the restrictions tons...

>>136345522
It's pointless lad, we explain this shit to them daily, and yet they always completely ignore it and make the same retarded argument the next day as if you hadn't already countered their point.
It's infuriating.

>>136345646
Victoria knew she'd have no real active role in government from the beginning of her reign.

>>136345681
You mean parliament did OK.

>>136345522
Aah, but I was trying to argue a role such as Victoria's for our Monarch.

You see, Victoria wasn't entirely apolitical. She influenced public opinion greatly. Yet out Monarch does not, nor do any of the royal family. Their political opinions are unknown.

>>136345115
Do any drive-bys lately old chap?

>>136345536
if the monarch starts constantly shooting their mouth off about politics then they run the risk of influencing public opinion, as soon as they draw the attention to themselves then people start asking why an unelected hereditary monarch has any power to influence anyone, then the monarch succeeds in chopping off the branch that the monarchy sits on, i.e. a branch made of public goodwill and of the knowledge that the monarch, despite being unelected and hereditary, is an impotent figurehead. all of this is a result of the english civil war and subsequent three and a half centuries of british political history. do you NOW understand?

>calls me stupid
top kek

>>136345601
>>136345583
t. rabid left leaning vegan uni student

>those tits

MUMMY

>>136345528
>they have no power to do so

Show me the law that prevents them from being an activist

>>136345701
This is becoming a daily occurrence, it's probably simpler sending them to 4plebs.

>>136345726
>Aah, but I was trying to argue a role such as Victoria's for our Monarch.
This is what we have now essentially.

>>136345646
By the time Victoria stopped signing royal assent the precedent was already a century set that the Monarch always agrees with the electorate representative.
Why does this argument need to be had every single fucking time, it's the same points being refuted every single fucking time. It's as if everyone is so allergic to being wrong that they just expunge all memory of being proven wrong.

>LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is prepared to pay up to 40 billion euros (36.12 billion pounds) as part of a deal to leave the European Union, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported, citing three unnamed sources familiar with Britain's negotiating strategy.

>The newspaper said British officials were likely to offer to pay 10 billion euros a year for three years after leaving the EU in March 2019, then finalise the total alongside detailed trade talks.

>>136345776
>I don't understand uncodified constitutional precedent

>>136345744
That's precisely why I said the Monarch was too frightened to do anything.

They were frightened of public backlash. However, it's also why I said it's partly their own fault for not justifying why a Monarch is necessary.

>>136345776
>not understanding the difference between de jure and de facto

jesus christ anon

>>136345896
They shouldn't need to justify why a Monarch is necessary. 1000 years of our history is centered around the role.

>>136345815
Victoria made actual suggestions as to how Britain should operate.

Our Queen does literally nothing.

>>136345896
if they speak out they get removed from power, then whatever they spoke out against goes ahead anyway

hurr durr

>>136345893
So you can't show me?

Good to know.

>>136345129
>Queen Elizabeth II

>let woman run country
>turn empire into shithole

where did i see it happen? right, its merkel in slow-mo. yet merkel gets bashed on, rightfully. wondering why elizabeth ii doesnt get the same shit - granted, it took her 50 years to turn her empire into shit, while merkel managed to ruin her country in 2 years.

>>136344801
Nothing you have said has proved you are not an idiot or a child.

>>136345914
You're assuming the Monarch couldn't afford to back a political position. If they couldn't it's de facto, but if they could, and don't out of fear, then they are literally just feeble

File: .713872520172217696841275142501247120761279612796.jpg (155KB, 860x485px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 860x485px

In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country’s honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head

>>136345989
>if they speak out they get removed from power

I disagree

>>136345839
Ok

>>136345522
That doesn't mean the monarchy is powerless

>>136345984
That's not true at all. The Queen fulfils all the roles she should, she simply can't use to her full extent what, technically, is legal through her Prerogative Powers. Besides, for all you know, Queen Elizabeth does exactly the same and influences ministers behind the scenes in the same manor in which Victoria did, these things usually don't come to light until after the death of said Monarch. Regardless of all that, Victoria's position left a gaping hope in our constitution in which a Monarch acts as oversight of parliament, who enact the will of the people. Victoria, too, had lost those powers by the time of her reign in practice. In theory, they exist until this day and the Queen could dissolve parliament tomorrow if you want to LARP.

>>136346110
Yes it does you fool.

>>136346006
You know what uncodified mean right?
Show me the law where the largest party leader becomes PM?
There isn't one, it's uncodified precedent. But to disobey would cause crisis.

Seriously faggots our entire legal and political history is based on case law and precedent, yet you utter fucking retards still refuse to even try and understand the basis of what many of you cite as one of the greatest legacies of the Empire, yet you constantly scream that if it isn't codified it isn't real. This is beyond retarded.

>>136346190
Could you please explain where in any of the history of the law of this country, is political power assigned to the media?

Does the media hold political power?

>>136346190
Victoria's speeches were also charged.

I never said the Queen should exercise any power through constitutional levers, just that she could afford to voice her opinion a bit more. Perhaps on the Church, perhaps on societal decline.

The silence of the Monarch is defeaning. I can think of no other Monarch who would remain silent.

>>136346294
>what is influence
Retard.

>>136346294
>Does the media hold political power?
They obviously do, but there isn't a codified bit of legislation which hands them political power. What kind of question is that?

>>136346318
>I never said the Queen should exercise any power through constitutional levers, just that she could afford to voice her opinion a bit more
This is exactly what I'm advocating for, though. I don't want a Queen like Victoria who resorted to influencing ministerial affairs behind the scenes and influencing fashion choices.

>>136346199
I never said it wouldn't cause a crisis. However, just because there's no precedent for it under the current Monarch doesn't mean it can't happen.

Unless you think we should just accept defeat because if we don't there'd be a crisis.

>>136346384
So even if you considered the codified legislation that restricts the Monarch's power to be legitimate, do you still deny that the monarch has power?

>>136346380
>influence isn't a form of power
Keep digging that hole

>>136346464
We've LARPed on here many times, and have openly spoken about scenarios in which a Monarch might use their Prerogative powers and refuse Royal Assent, Queen's consent, appointment powers etc, and I've said I can think of many scenarios in the last 200 years where, I think, such an act would be warranted, however it hasn't happened for the very specific reason that such an Act would put the entire Crown at risk.

So please, when discussing Monarchical affairs, try not to LARP and remain in reality.

>The same people who support keeping th e Monarch quiet to avoid crisis unironically support the deposition of James II for a cloggywog

Just because it causes a crisis doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.

>>136346608
I never advocated that, lad.

I am advocating the Monarch speaking up slightly more on issues of incredible importance, and Eddie insists the sky will fall if she does so

>>136346567
>So even if you considered the codified legislation that restricts the Monarch's power to be legitimate
No codified legislation HAS restricted the Monarchs powers to what we currently have. Precedent has. Her Prerogative powers are still legal IN THEORY.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/422/42204.htm

>The Queen's constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Sovereign's hands. They include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances The Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts Ministerial advice about the use of these powers if it is available, whether she personally agrees with that advice or not. That constitutional position ensures that Ministers take responsibility for the use of the powers.

>do you still deny that the monarch has power?
She has more power than you and I, but not the constitutional role she is meant to fulfil.

>>136346713
Why are you advocating for such a meaningless thing? The Queen has spoken up in defence of the Church of England many times amongst other things. What I'm arguing for is the return of the Monarch to her constitutional position which has unbalanced our system and given parliament ultimately supremacy. An electorate, aka a collection of divided voting blocs, is the only thing parliament is answerable to in this country.

File: They_Live_Poster_v01.jpg (139KB, 610x869px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 610x869px

>>136345605

Hospitals are super busy because of the hidden tranny class. There are loads more than people think, and many get health complications. Hormones are serious business.

This place is so fucking retarded. I'm going back to shit posting. I really do hate the vast majority of posters here. You're fucking retards.

>>136346936
>when you're so stupid you get blown the fuck out by anonymongs regularly

>>136346936
Not an argument

File: CharlesII.jpg (13KB, 220x281px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x281px

>>136346936

File: Philip_IV_of_Spain.jpg (21KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x250px

>>136347031
Appointed by God.

>>136347014
>>136347006
Neither of you responded to my argument.

>>136347080
Which one?
The one where you say that the monarch doesn't have as much power as they used to (and are supposed to)?
I agree

File: DF2LHviXcAAwaBd.jpg (123KB, 800x850px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x850px

*invades ur country*

*rapes ur women*

*installs sharia courts*

*bombs ur children*

*throws acid in ur face*

>>136347080
You're explaining the car to people who can't grasp the wheel.

>>136347215
Maybe it's a self-driving car?

>>136347215
You already gave your stupid analogy.

But why am I replying to you?
It's like explaining the car

to people who refuse to grasp the wheel

File: CharlesII2.jpg (14KB, 448x312px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 448x312px

>"The physician who performed his autopsy stated that his body "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."

>>136347284
You're just embarrassing yourself more than anything.

File: 234652346.jpg (7KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 299x168px

Why doesn't she seem to care that her country is being raped by Islam and Africa?

File: image.jpg (77KB, 468x341px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 468x341px

Where's Rimmer? You looking forward to the match? 16/17 was the highpoint for you. This season is going to be more like 15/16 and today is going to show it.

>>136347431
Will you and Eddie even last another year here?
doubtful

>>136347215
You still haven't given me a convincing reason the queen shouldn't be more politically active.

>inb4 "muh precedent"

How's that precedent worked out for us the last half century?

>>136347465
No one man should have all that power.

>>136347465
>How's that precedent worked out for us the last half century?
It's comments like this that make me think you're retarded. If you can't understand the legal significance of precedent in our system then it's impossible to even begin speaking with you on matters like this.

>>136347513
The monarchy are appointed by God and are descendants of Odin

>>136347543
"precedence" is the adult version of saying "but he did it too and didn't get in trouble"

>>136347609
No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

>In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts[citation needed]. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis.

That's from the first paragraph of wikipedia, if any of you had any interest in this topic at all, you'd atleast know this which is why this is a pointless discussion.

>>136347465
>you can just change constitutional precedent because you feel like it
You have no fucking understanding of even the basics of English law and I have no will to teach you. Uncodified law becomes far more entrenched in law than codified European systems of civil law. The fact that you can't understand that implies to me you're an immigrant or a retard.

>>136347543
>Because it hasn't been done, it shouldn't be

That sounds more retarded than anything I've said tbph

>>136347684
Read this >>136347664

>>136347678
Nah, you're just wrong.

"It's unprecedented, so it's bad".

TopKek, Tripmong

File: vince tip.png (1MB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x667px

>Older people who voted for Brexit have "comprehensively shafted the young", Sir Vince Cable has said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017

>>136346909
Bloody hormones...

>>136347693
What part of that means the Queen can't voice her opinion a bit more?

File: 1501925762090-pol.png (112KB, 500x426px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x426px

>when people who don't understand the difference between common and civil law demand you explain to them how English constition operates but refuse to accept precedent as an explanation
Fucking hell.

>>136347664
That's exactly what it is. Tu quoque in an appeal to history.
What you fail to grasp is that the world is changing. We aren't drilling holes in people's heads to release demons just because it's what we used to do.

>>136347741
>explain to me how English constition works
>lol Wtf is precedent
Kys

File: King James II.jpg (57KB, 560x678px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 560x678px

>>136347776
She already fucking does this. You have to understand you aren't advocating for some revolutionary change to our system, you are simply asking for the Queen to voice her opinion on matters more - something she does annually.

>>136347684
>I don't know what precedent is

1688 was illegal.

>>136347783
Show me the legal case that set a precedent that indicates the Queen can't voice her opinion.

I'll wait.

>>136347856
Not an argument.

>>136347850
>We aren't drilling holes in people's heads to release demons just because it's what we used to do.
Medical superstition is not the same as government and law.

>>136347938
>we should stone women to death for adultery because it has legal precedent

>>136347870
She doesn't do it enough.

>1688 was illegal

It still happened and didn't turn out too bad.

>>136347981
>>136347997
Idiots.

>It still happened and didn't turn out too bad.
Especially this. I wrote a long paragraph explaining why it was bad.

>>136348027
Doesn't seem like it was so bad.

We got India out of it.

>>136347900
Hey kid, pick up a book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

>>136348082
>We got India out of it.
How did you get that?

For you guys advocating for more power for the monarch - consider what would happen if Charlie 'I want to be your tampon' takes the throne. The guy who wanted to change 'defender of the faith' to 'defender of faith' cos muzzies...

>>136348142
You can remove a person from the Crown, not the office entirely.

Anonymong: hey can you explain to how an engine works?
>Yeah sure, basically you have combustion an-
Anonymong: combustion
>Yeah... like fire...
Anonymong: lol faggot are you saying fire makes my car go, lol fuck off
>What? Of course it does
Anonymong: lmao give me a convincing argument how engines inb4 muh combustion LMAO

>>136348114
Merging of the Dutch East India Company and British East India Company plus the economics brought to Britain by the Dutch.

>>136348218
>more analogies

File: 0b5b247937e09cf989f7f6500bf8fecacf74d7d2.jpg (38KB, 377x1197px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 377x1197px

>tfw no susanna reid wife

>>136348224
Out of the Glorious Revolution?

>>136348240
>more retards

>>136348268
Yes.

>>136348301
But the British and Dutch had economic and colonial interests prior to the Glorious Revolution and William the Orange.

>>136348114
The Dutch dominated Spice trade (Indonesia), we got the textile trade (India).

The Seven Years war secured it, but without 1688 we wouldn't have got that sweet peace with the Dutch. Also, no way we could've taken India without systems of government debt borrowed from the Dutch.

>>136348209
But that's always been the fundamental problem with the system, for every Elizabeth 1st there's a George 3rd. And removing a strong reigning monarch (even if the man's a bufoon) can take civil war, as the forces/police etc serve the crown.

We need our bill of rights back.

>>136348344
See this: >>136348442

Read "Empire" by Niall Ferguson if you haven't already, it details all this in the first half of the book.

Gf emptied the joint account again lads

>>136348344
Yes, but the British were not only doing terribly financially because of the impact of the wars, but the Dutch had wiped out a number of British trading posts, and controlled the waters to and from Britain's financial interests.

>>136348568
>joint account
Ffs sake anon, I've been married 10yrs and she still doesn't have access to my accounts. Just give her cash occasionally. Although she did lift a card out my wallet and buy herself a new phone when I forgot her bday last year...

>>136348568
Ahmed wanted to take her somewhere nice. Be grateful.

>>136348789
>implying he's not called DeShawn

>>136348027
You didn't answer my point about legal precdence not being reflective of today's society.

Sorry you have the brain the size of a peppercorn.

Going to the shop to get some amber leaf lads, you want anything?

>>136348442
Well I've learned something about the colonisation of India today. I always thought the Portuguese rule centuries prior made it accessible. Let's talk about the legal consequences of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 though. I can only repeat what I've told you many times ITT already to stress the importance of the Sovereign in our constitutional system, in which, they act as oversight of our system through their established powers. We've not adhered to a form of absolutism ever, but definitely not since the Thirteen century, and although many kings have tried, none have came close to wielding power without any established restraints. Their constitutional role is to preside over public assemblies who would enact the will of the people whilst in theory, all of the powers of state derive from the Monarch. 1688 unbalanced this by instating the Bill of Rights 1689, which is a master piece but was nothing unique, all it did was establish laws which had been common place for centuries with the added incentive of giving parliament supremacy by openly choosing a king who was subservient to them, hereby leading to the Act of Union 1707, forbidding the Crown from having any influence over parliament, followed by the refusal of the Scottish Militia Bill by Queen Anne one year later in 1708 which led to outrage, as she was expected not to refuse the will of parliament what so ever by this point (even on legitimate grounds like the Scottish Militia Bill) and the act was carried on regardless. I've already said, this peaked with the reign of Victoria, whom by this point was fully aware she was entering the Crown with no active role in government and her powers devolved to ministers and Governor Generals abroad. In the last centuries since her death, this has descended from there.

>>136348904
Because it is reflective of today's society. It's our entire system. I'm not going to explain the most fundamental aspect of our system to you.

>>136349107
Also my last (You) on this matter. You people are absolute mongs with no desire to learn, just argue your shit points.

>>136348483
>George III
Beat France
Beat Napoleon
Agricultural revolution
Directly influenced British science and maths
>b... but he lost murika
Which lead to us to heavily invest in India and propel us to superpower

File: 02e411be7cd43f33bbdd1e54111723b7.jpg (59KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x480px

nth for a grand day out just starting on BBC 1

>>136349107
So you're saying we should carry out the stuff in the bible just because it has a legal precedent?
That, if you can take something by force, it should be allowed because it has legal precendence?

Get a grip on reality please. You are embarrassing this general.

>>136349140
Iktf

File: Empire.png (924KB, 844x2352px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 844x2352px

>>136349107
Here's the relevant section of the book I mentioned regarding the economic and commercial consequences of 1688.

>>136349328
Fucking hell, most retarded post of the day. Please look up
>English Common Law
>Case law
And a fucking definition of the word precedent you utter mong.

>Lib Dems doubling down on their remain cuckery

>>136346936
You're a fucking tripfag lad, people like you are the fucking losers of 4chan which is saying something

>>136349179
The point being he went round the bend cos syph or porphyria (or whatevs). You want a strong monarchy, you better really hope you don't get some PC idiot, cos what are you going to do about It?

>>136349441
Yeah your point stands. Just think he gets a hard time.

>>136349416
Well I have learned something today. I thought the Bank of England was solely because of the Royal Charter, not the Dutch, but I'd still argue ten times over that the political consequences of 1688 far negate any temporary economic prosperity.

File: 1501985578591.png (530KB, 844x474px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 844x474px

Konnichiwa Senpais

>>136345605
wow he needs an award He's very brave, inspirational even. I bet he has perfect mental health

>>136349441
England has never had an absolute monarchy and its rather well established a king or queen can be removed.

does anyone else find that chinese places don't start cooking your order until you get there? why does this only happen with chinese/noodle type places?

File: (Irish suffering.jpg (261KB, 1400x906px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1400x906px

Apologize

>>136349107
>Portuguese rule centuries prior

There was never Portuguese rule of India; if anything they were like the British, Dutch and French in the early days, merely feeding off of the excess silk and spices produced by the Mughals, their little fortified trading posts operating entirely at the mercy of the local Nawabs and Maharajas, not to mention the Emperor himself.

>1688

I understand it led to a cucked Monarch, but I seriously cannot see how we would've developed much of an empire without Dutch finance.

You've got to understand that we couldn't fully utilise either our East India trade, or our West Indies sugar islands because the Dutch placed restrictions on us. Not only did our produce have to arrive in British ships (stopping Britain from bringing in the quantities of produce they would have liked), but our West African trade had been destroyed by the Dutch, and our position elsewhere was under threat. You also can't abide by a foreign power controlling the sea routes to and from your plantations and trading posts.

If you can see a way we could've borrowed Dutch government debt systems without the merger, I'd like to know about it.

>>136349922
That's why you phone it in upfront and just collect, mate.

>>136349973
Wtf?

>>136349973
>the irish way

so only relying on one crop, and when that crop fails running to britain for help.

>>136349973
Doesn't this Catholic country now have a muslim leader or something?

>>136349799
You better just hope there's a Cromwell around when you need one...

File: 1492427683512.gif (472KB, 300x203px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 300x203px

Rule Britannia!!! Ri.. Right lads!?!?!

>>136350140
They have a homosexual Paki-Paddy.

>>136350009
>I understand it led to a cucked Monarch, but I seriously cannot see how we would've developed much of an empire without Dutch finance.
You don't have much of a country left without the role the monarch holds, which far negates any economic prosperity brought on by 1688 but to begin with, it was a Scottish man who created the Bank of England and its initial capital stock was created entirely off public donations, to say nothing of the fact the Empire was established prior to 1688 and not only established, it peaked three centuries later.

Besides all this, not a single bit of that argued against any of the political consequences of 1688 which I'll repeat for the third time, negate any economic prosperity as a result of 1688 (a topic I'm not overly familiar with outside of the Bank of England).

>>136350220
Remember the countries that call us cucked have had a nigger President and HAVE a paki fag President.

>>136350181
Cromwell removed the Crown and replaced it with a role which held more power than any Monarch in British history ever had, with no restraints on his power, and then it was abolished as a failure shortly after his death. Cromwell can stay where he is.

Surerly if we somehow go the school to start teaching about all the good things our previous monarchs had done in about 20 years we would have a monarch who would be able to use their power and it won't be a shock to anyone as that's what the would have learned about

>>136350564
Muh democracy is the global sacred calf.

File: marching.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci267ezilaA

>>136350564
I've said before but I think the only way this will ever happen is if the monarch did refuse Royal Assent, powers to dissolve parliament, etc, and it is equally as likely it could all back fire and result the dissolution of the Crown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoJVn0Eq8y0

I like to LARP though.

File: 1488751476585.jpg (105KB, 1080x704px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1080x704px

>>136350633

>I come into an anime based board populated by neets and autists and complain about their lack of political knowledge

Lads I'm so blackpilled

Here's another ebin comedian meme too so you know how blackpilled I am

So I heard bongs are ready to pay 40billions to stay in EU market... sadly its still not enough

File: The_Comedian.jpg (358KB, 910x964px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 910x964px

>>136350898
Haha whoopsies, forgot the ebin meme

>>136350413
>the Empire was established prior to 1688

It was destined to be similar to your average European Empire at this time though. It's all well and good having a few West Indies Islands and some plantations in Virginia and New England, but the real money (and manpower) was always to be found in India. Without India the Empire really was nothing special, and without 1688 we likely would've had to share India with the Dutch and French.

Still, I do get your point about how the entire operation more or less destroyed the prestige and power of the British monarchy. I suppose the question is whether you value global dominance over the proper role of the Monarch or not.

>>136350932
I'm gonna be so pissed if this happens that's basically holding us hostage, that's a lot of money were gonna end up being poor as fuck

>>136350025

That's what I'm talking about, I order it online, go to collect, then they start cooking it, never ready. I've had a similar experience at a couple of different places in different cities and countries.

>>136350088

Lots of crops were grown, mostly they were grown by Irish agricultural serfs and exported to feed the industrial revolution in the UK. They continued to be exported while the Irish starved.

>>136351202
Yes, because whites (British) come above non-whites (Irish).

>>136351063

The nation has spoken.

>>136351261

You seem to be confusing race and nationality there.

File: Screenshot_20170806-103458.png (789KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1080x1920px

Le based bigger >Le based liberal lesbian

>Gove confirms foreign access to UK fishing grounds

Under whose authority? I seem to recall the people of the UK voting for Brexit?

>>136351480
I want civil war and I want it now. Even if I die immediately I want this degenerate shithole in the ocean to burn

>>136351556
Under the authority of the MPs voted in by the electorate.

Is there anything more boring than constitutional law?

>Muh precedent

>>136351613
>have you crossed the line

same tbqh but it would probably just end up with another shit government

>>136351788
You represent the drop in quality of discussion for Brit/pol/.

>>136351480
My license fee (sorry, talmudvision tax) going to good use there. What parent would allow this? I hope one of the kids an heroes and the fallout kills the beeb

>>136351941
How lad?

>>136351976
Discussions about topics like law are a shining diamond amongst the piles of horseshit in this place.

File: cfe1e187cd5703d9d1513ae24937b4839e3a7f1c97972667f576b79a1b2874a6.jpg (42KB, 479x361px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x361px

>>136351941
>drop in quality of discussion for Brit/pol/.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x960px

Anyone else watching the game? There's a minute silence for Grenfell.

>>136352013
Give me three posts in this thread that are "good discussion" then la'

None of them can be you or shit head ed.

>>136351480
>The doctor introduces a series of “interventions” to “gender neutralise” the class of 23 children, but by the end of the programme he has misgivings.
>“I’m worried that all I’ve done is upset a load of kids and none of this has had the slightest effect,” he says.

Who could have possibly predicted that?

>>136352037
Yes, there's going to be one for the whole 2017/18 season, prior to every game.

>>136352034
Every time I think I'm looking at it through rose tinted glasses I remember that there's genuine opposition to good discussion now. That never existed.

>>136352063
>None of them can be you or shit head ed.
You're making it hard for me. You and WN had good points about the colonisation of India.

I'll take these new tripfags over Rightly So and Eddie, who both got embarrassed this morning when defending Hitchens and his new-found adolation of the EU.

More-intelligent tripfags might give this general a kick up the arse.

File: 1498595251010.png (1MB, 1001x1100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1001x1100px

>>136352037
>mfw grenfell 'victims' sue both the teams for using their tragedy in a commerical football game to buy another Mayfair penthouse and another new rolls royce

>>136352228
Anonymongs got utterly BTFO as usual this morning.

>>136350898
hahaha Anonymongs BTFO!

>>136352159
It's objectively true that constitutional law is boring. The whole thing needs to be razed and then streamlined.

Precedent this, crisis that. It's all just

>>136352425
Idiots were engaging in discussions about constitutional law without even knowing what precedence in law is.

>>136352425
The dynamics of global dominance though? That's objectively interesting and entertaining. I don't mind talking about that.

Constitutional law is just bland.

>>136351480
Nothing we can do now lads.
Anyone considering emigrating? Where would you go?

>>136352554
It's more relevant to Brit/pol/ than "the dynamics of global dominance."

>>136352159
Not opposing good discussion, just that it's been a rare thing on brit/pol/ (and a Samoan ant throttling forum in general) for a long time. Not a brit/pol/ regular, but every time I come back its more tripfag and cancer ridden than last time

>first for x
>big soup
>tunnocks tea Cakes
>Karen
>I miss yktd
>hitch is a cunt
>hitch is god
>etc

File: Minnesota Mosque Bombing.png (595KB, 728x764px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 728x764px

>>136344650
>>136352493
/pol/ will defend this.

>>136352560
Australia seems like the only option left, but it's boiling hot and filled with shitposters.

>>136352560
Did you emmigrate to morroco?

>>136352605
Not really. The aim of a nation should be to dominate its neighbours, and project its power across the globe.

Whether or not the Queen can blow her nose with a red tissue as opposed to a white one without causing a crisis isn't terribly important to me.

>>136352618
Probs a device of peace that went off prematurely...

>>136352644
I thought this as well. Hate the hot weather. Also more and more aussie horror stories about feminism and multi culti on the rise in aussie
>>136352680
Just here for work. Arab countries are hell holes. Would never consider living here.

File: grenf.png (81KB, 633x689px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 633x689px

>>136352037
>Grenfell
this is going to be odd looking back on grenfell in 10 years time, the wikipeida , media and books will report it as a tragic accident where londerners died in a fire due to poor construction. I view it as ackbars with 10 kids illegally sublet the flats provided free to them and then the building caught fire after a muslim left his fridge on.
Then they rioted about got about 100 grand each and had 10 more kids.

>>136352710
>Whether or not the Queen can blow her nose with a red tissue as opposed to a white one without causing a crisis isn't terribly important to me.
What you're doing there is confusing common law and our role of governance with whether or not the Queen can blow her nose with a red tissue as opposed to white one.

>>136352762
It'll be a recognised day of national white self-flagellation in 10 years time lad

>>136352760
>Also more and more aussie horror stories about feminism and multi culti on the rise in aussie

They've still got the basic common sense to turn away boats filled with illegal migrants. They're not quite done yet.

File: nunsbegood.png (44KB, 1006x533px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1006x533px

>>136352618
managed to break a pane of glass and a bit of the plastic blinds on one side is melted.

>>136352560
Unironically South America.

European culture, weather's good, plenty of open space, you can get around the bureaucracy quite easily, British qualifications and experience will go far there, land is cheap. I'm considering the Southern Cone but in practice the whole place is okay if you can find a middle or upper class neighborhood. People still have staff and maids. Property is reasonable and well put together. They have English communities, with cricket and rugby clubs.

There are a few downsides but by and large you can live very well there away from a lot of bullshit. Same in the Caribbean and parts of Asia.

>>136352560
this is so fucked shit like this is gonna lead to kids growing up and being messed up in the head as they wont understand who they are

>>136352618
if no one died that's funny

>>136352905
"cheapest pussy in the world"

>>136352793
Still, earlier I was told that the Queen cannot voice her opinion strongly, or be politically active, because of precedent.

When I then asked for prior judgements with applicable principles, I was greeted with silence.

>>136352710
>the operation of British politics is not relevant to a general about British politics
Fucking neck yourself you retarded cunt.

>>136353067
And I was met with silence when I told you the Queen does that annually and what you're advocating is nothing revolutionary what so ever.

>>136352905
I heard Ghana is trying to make themselves into the a destination for euro expats, I know kenya has a big British community

>>136352854
There is hope, you're right. But for how long?

>>136352905
Never considered SA. Maybe. Honestly was thinking about rural US communities. Not a fan of tge US but maybe there will be a community of like minded people in a place with cheap land, good gun ownership laws, decent community ethos. Thats not so bad.
>>136352986
All you can do is be attentive and raise your kids well

>>136353107
You're such a mong, lad.

>>136353149
Well then kindly tell Eddie he's a mong.

>>136351480
What is wrong with gender neutralising anyway? aren't gender roles as outdated as tribal warfare?

>>136353162
You have zero clue what you're talking about yet arrogantly claim everyone else is wrong. It's fucking painful to see how fucking idiotic you are.

>>136353153
You don't want to go to Kenya/Ghana
Go to South Africa after their inevitable civil war

>>136353107
what i thought this was /brit/

>>136353200
I'd rather call the guy dismissing constitutional law as relevant to Brit/pol/ a mong.

>>136353209
please say this is bait you syndrome

>>136353273
>>136353273
>>136353273
>>136353273

new thread

>>136353323
It's almost 70 posts early you fucking idiot.

>>136353265
You never gave me a relevant case that shows that the Queen cannot voice her opinion regularly because precedent.

I'm still waiting, mong.

>>136353323
Retard.

>>136353323
238 posts calm down lad

>>136353209
>Bring women in workforce
>Wages halfed
>Can't afford families
This kills the Britain
We need gender roles back

>>136345129
She's done the best she possibly can given the circumstances, which means not really doing anything. There's a reason we're one of the only surviving monarchies in the West.

>>136353294
Well, Eddie said the Queen cannot voice her opinion more forcefully than she does because "precedence".

I asked him from which cases does he see applicable principles. Stone cold silence.

He's a mong.

>>136353323
> >ANONYMONGS
>IF ONLY US TRIPFAGS MADE THREADS

>>136353434
>Eddie said the Queen cannot voice her opinion more forcefully
By this, you are implying the Queen can't force her opinion upon the government? She can't. Because of precedent.

>>136353317
Every different opinion to yours is not bait or trolling you twat.

>>136353392
Women have always been in the workforce.

>>136353392
This. Feminism has done more harm than good

>>136353481
No, I was talking about voicing an opinion more strongly than she currently does. Whether that involves doing so more often, or with more conviction.

>>136353549
How has it done any harm?

>>136353361
>if it's not codified it doesn't exist
Are you European by any chance?

>>136353508
Taking away gender roles is defying nature it will lead to people growing up and not understanding themselves because without gender roles no one is gonna feel like they fit in anywhere

>>136353508
Not the same extent
What I mean more is that women don't see raising a child as honourable job anymore

>>136353589
I never said that. I asked you to show me a judgement with applicable principles indicating that the Queen cannot voice her opinion.

Also, I wish we had a French Civil Law style system.

>>136347148
And they won. In about 30 years they will be the majority.

>>136353579
What the fuck does "more strongly" mean?

>>136353600
That's a non argument because as humans we have defied nature a millions time already.

we've made engines, created medicines, changed our diets, changed the role of the parents and children, physical activity has changed, we dont engage in tribal warfare, we talk to each other differently.

I could go on.

>>136353677
Show me a case where a minor MP has been told they cannot be PM?
Again I can't explain the operation of a system if you fail to even attempt to understand the fundamental base of that system which is precedent.

>>136353625
>>136353726
Removing the gender roles is gonna stop people raising kids all together these sorts of environments are going to make kids more likely to be gay with the amount of muslims in this country this is gonna further progress the death of the white race because i don't see alot of muslims falling for this gender role bullshit

>>136353721
With more conviction.

That is, the Queen says, "It is regrettable the government has passed" such and such piece of legislation or whatever.

I merely asked for a judgement with applicable principles showing that the Queen cannot do that.

>listening to Enoch Powell interview
>imaginies a day when 'perhaps 1/3 of London will be brown'

>>136353904
That's called Royal Assent and she can't sign it, even in person, because of precedence.

>>136353788
I'm not asking for a specific case, I'm asking for judgements with applicable principles that shows the Queen does not have the power to strongly voice her opinion.

>>136353586
The 'liberation' of women is leading to the death of the family unit. More and more women pursuing careers, becoming less likely to start families. Stronger voting power for them leading to more policies aimed at women such as greater bias for them in divorces leading to greater risk when marrying. As a result more and more men are choosing not to marry since its too dangerous and degenerate culture of everyone sleeping around grows. We're having less and less native Euro babies born so obviously something has to be done to fill the void in our future generation. Something like importation of migrants

>>136353992
I never advocated her not signing it, merely voicing an opinion on it.

>>136353992
He seems to think you need a pen and paper judgement for any precedent to be set, he fails to even understand what precedent means yet beleives he understands English constition. It's fucking hopeless.

File: Diversity goy.png (179KB, 600x688px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x688px

>>136347148
*Drops out of the anglosphere*

>>136353971
Its probably around 40% brown now and that's presuming that paddies and poles are white

>>136353726
Listen to the likes of some serious (ie not snowflake) feminists like camille pagalia or hoff-summers and what they think of modern feminists. They fought for equality and freedom of speech. Not gender based affirmative action and safe spaces. Laughed like fuck when germane greere got no platformed at cambridge - hoist by her own petard

>>136353625
>women don't see raising a child as honourable job anymore

Proof? Or is it your opinion of things?

>>136353677
The Royal Family aren't allowed to take sides with the government. They have to be neutral so I also think that means they can't comment on any policies that are not adopted by every single governmental party, for example you'll never hear them comment on Immigration.

>>136353864
>Removing the gender roles is gonna stop people raising kids all together these sorts of environments are going to make kids more likely to be gay with the amount of muslims in this country this is gonna further progress the death of the white race because i don't see alot of muslims falling for this gender role bullshit
Lots of men want to raise kids as much as women. altering gender roles is going to have them share the job more equally, which is a good thing because spending your entire day bringing up children is boring as fuck.

It wont turn people gay. And Muslims gender roles are fucked up, if women weren't at risk of being disowned by their families they would all flock to a society that doesnt repress women so heavily

>>136354003
There needs be no judgement you utter fucking tool. If something is done a certain fucking way for 300 fucking years it become a set precedent. The longer something is done the more ingrained in constitution it becomes. If you can't understand the actual meaning of English words, why are you even attempting to understand English law. Fuck off.

>>136354122
>The Royal Family aren't allowed to take sides with the government.

Fine, but nobody will cite ANYTHING as PRECEDENT!

>>136354041
You're right these are all problems that exist but not from feminism they come from society's norms and a lack of adequate parenting.

The media is a lot mopre influential in shaping the beliefs of children than their own parents, because those parents are simply not there to instill a strong moral base into their kids. The parents dont have strong moral basis of their own anyway.

>>136354194
If it's not codified, and you can cite nothing as precedent, tell me again why the Queen cannot voice her opinion?

>>136354208
Fucking hell you're a retard. For precedent to be disproven you would have to cite sources of it being broken. Are you really this fucking thick, how can you cite a source of something not happening?

File: trump.jpg (38KB, 300x385px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x385px

>>136354208
the Queen can't have opinions because our President says so

>>136354208
Because you don't know what it fucking is.

>>136354003
She does have the power but it's likely the population would react badly to the queen trying to be involved in politics, this could also lead the the government trying to take away more of the power she has left

>>136354122
There gender roles aren't fucked up they are fine whats fucked up is their ideology on how they treat the genders differently by trying to completely remove gender it makes it seem like difference is a bad thing when in reality people being difference is what gives us strength do you really want to see a future where everyone is the same because thats where all this stuff is headed

>>136354108
Nobody supports those quack feminists anyway. Just extreme leftist loonys who advocate socialism and young university students who want a revolution. For the latter group its only temporary.

>>136354312
OUR CONSTITUTION IS LARGELY UNCODIFIED IT IS THE BASIS OF OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>136354208
>>136354326
Wouldn't the magna carta say something about this?

>>136354405
The magna carta is a wee bit before 1707

NEW
>>136354040
>>136354040
>>136354040

NEW
>>136354040
>>136354040
>>136354040


also eddie knows nothing about constitutionalism, he's clearly fucking posing. do not reply to tripfags, it only encourages them

>>136354488
Great time to make a thread when there's already an early one you fuckign spastic.

>>136354326
Please show me a case that established this as precedent. Extract some principles from a case that show that the Queen cannot have opinions.

>>136354391
Prove to me the Queen not voicing her opinion is precedent.

>>136354294
I agree, parenting is a big issue and a bigger one still is modern media. But feminism has only helped this issue by destabilising the family and removing gender roles.
There is no single issue here but plenty of factors responsible for where we are now.

>>136354362
> it makes it seem like difference is a bad thing when in reality people being difference is what gives us strength
We have different versions of open-gender roles in our heads.

Really what are the dangers of having this? Women wont be culturally brainwashed from an early age to be physically and intellectually helpless and men will be able to express how they feel more easily, which is proven to be psychologically beneficial.

File: 1465648434985.jpg (72KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 604x453px

>>136349973
I would do it all again given the chance. Fuck potatoniggers

>>136354486
But that's where the royal family's powers were detailed in law after the civil war.

>>136354647
Magna Carta was in the 13th century lad, if you didn't know and in its self, was an ineffective document of written down laws. The influence of Magna Carta comes from its effect on law over the coming centuries.

>>136354603
I think your seeing to much difference between men and women when have women ever been made to feel intellectually helpless.At my school a lot of girls got way better grades than the boys. I also don't understand why you have the idea that men cant express their feelings this sounds like bullshit to me. Also women are physically inferior to men its science

>>136354369
Well they certainly seem to be driving the agenda eg that BBC gender school shit. Sex and the procreation drive is our most basic instinct. Messing with it for political reasons while not understanding the potential consequences is unbelievably dangerous - especially if, at the same time, you are actively trying to change the ethnic demographics of the country.

>>136345605
What the fuck is wrong with its face? Looks like it had a stroke.