The Queen nb

I was just going to make that point! The monarchys popularity has sky rocketed now we can see the alternative rupublic of el presidente blair, with s.s ubermeister blunket.
Besides didn't we all sign a document about the time germany reunited (or reunificated) to draw a line under WWII and let bygones be bygones? Whats their agenda now?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The Queen/Tony Blair nb

unfortunately, euopean leaders and esp Tony Blair (but also probably t'queen or if not the rest of the kids) are a bit dim AND very crap at history.

TB is all the way with daft dubya becos as he said in New York post 9/11 "the Americans were the ones who stood beside us during the blitz" whereas in fact they flippin weren't, and only joined the war in Dec 1941 after Pearl Harbour. This was long after German attention had moved eastwards with Barbarossa attack on Russia in June 1941.

It took the US 11months to turn up on UK soil in Nov 1942, by which time Germany had hopelessly overreached itself in the Caucuses/stalingrad etc.

There is no guarantee that the US would have joined ww2 if Hitler had simply stayed content with the situation as at June 1940 after France fell, italy ojn board etc - and indeed the US left the situation like that for 18months until pearl harbour.

In 1945 - there is no clarity nor certainty other than by hindsight that the war would have definitely ended in May 1945, and the fact that a possibly more talented war leader (Doenitz) took over with far better understanding of emerging (eg nuclear) weaponry points up the fact that they were not really "done for" as they weren't really "done for" in 1918 - they just needed to regroup. Doentiz attempted to negotiate peace whilst retaining some Germany independence, and seeing 60's 70's footage of an embittered Doenitz on programmes such as The World At War shows just how clearly he felt that with the right leadership (his) Germany should have won WW2- and he's probably right, if not in 1945 then perhaps later. Frexample, with his leadership and follwoing his rec'dations , Germany would have had thousands rather than hundreds of U-boats, and wd've ensured that no allied boat wd have dared sail the atlantic, ever - cos of the almost 100% g'tee of sinking. Doesntitz was never truly pleased with the "success" of the U-boats - which he wanted to wipe all allied shipping off the atlantic. No US supplies, no us troops, nothing.

Back to 1945, - despite the area bombings, AND despite the stopping of area bombings by allies in Feb 1945 after Dresden... Germany continued to launch V2's at London throughout March of the same year, killing hundreds of people in London in that month. So just who should be sorry?

Finally "saying sorry" works for people with a mental of around seven, which is about where dumbed-down britain has now reached, with everyone getting nice alevels and nice degrees rather than just the nasty horrid clever people which was all unfair, wasn't it?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
And we're not even mentioning the fact that her uncle was a traitor.

If the mere political reality of a monarchy wasn't sufficient argument for its abolition, the fact that we could have had a fascist traitorous toad as king at the moment of this country's greatest crisis, surely is plain enough for all to see.

Thank God for Mr Simpson!

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
This looked like it might be an interesting thread - until the anti-monarchists got hold of it. their arguments are s o o b o o r i n g ! It is going to be a long Winter.
The Queen !

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Off with his heid

<font color=blue>The new Scottish Parliament opened by Billy Connolly. </font color=blue>

Now [bold] that [/bold] would be something to see and enjoy

<hr width=100% size=1>If work was so good, the rich would have kept more of it for themselves.
 
Ok then .. lets hear your constitutional arguments rather than you're snide sarcasm! Its your country as well and if you're happy letting TB or any other leader of the executive do what he wants then stand up and be counted. I do'nt give a stuff whether there's a monarchy or not as long as it do'nt cost too much .. but please don't tell me there's any constitutional relevance.. the absence of which negates parliamentary democracy.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The Queen/Tony Blair nb

Interesting analysis

Perhaps a little unkind to the Americans - they were giving material support to UK and some protection of convoys in Western Atlantic so some credit there I think.

Not convinced that the Germans were not done for in May 1945. Russian tanks driving around Berlin was not exactly a promising tactical position.

With 20/20 hindsight clearly Hitler should have invaded UK in spring 1941. It is most probable that he would have succeeded despite heavy casualties. Whether the Americans declared war on him or not would then of being irrelevant, they could not have physically intervened.

Strange set of multiple values - no apologies for invading Iraq which is difficult to justify on any moral basis but wants to apologise for WW2 which must be the most morally justifiable war of all time.

No doubt a quid pro quo for German support on the EU banana bending policy.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
OK I'll have a go

The first point with "constitutional arguments" is to remember that there isn't one, a constitution that is, or more correctly a written constitution.

But lets first consider the alternative - a republic.

Two basic patterns - the American where the President is head of state and head of government or the Irish where the head of state and head of government are elected separately.

In both cases the head of state is a political animal which in UK will mean a party political animal.

Thus we will have at a stroke a political head of:-

State
Armed forces
Judiciary
Police

In fact all the organs of state will be under direct political control - would'nt Tony like that!

Clearly the house of Lords would have to go since they have no-one to owe allegiance to

So there would be no way to prevent the house of commons passing an act of self perpetuation, or any other act to abolish these troublesome and expensive elections.

With a politicised president there would be no trouble receiving presidential assent.

With the military owing allegiance to a politicised presidency what would they do - either go along with it or have a military coup and government.

All very far fetched you may say and yes it is until you look at what has happened in many Commonwealth countries. First elected president then president for life then dictatorial tyrant.

You must remember when dealing with politicians they truely believe they know best what is good for us. Thats why its so important to have a mechanism that stops them doing it.

No-one least of all me would argue that a constitutional monarchy is perfect but if you have a count up how many republics have degenerated into dictatorship there must be something going for them.

And the biggest one that hasn't has Bush as president which surely must be a decisive argument for keeping HMQ in place despite the eccentricities of her relatives.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re:I\'d like to

What very many people in Britain don't realise that more people were killed in the bombing of Dresden and the resulting firestorm than were killed by the Germans during the blitz on our cities. It was akin to a non-nuclear Hiroshima in its effects.

No wonder the Germans don't see the funny side about this.

But should we apologise for it? No.

The Germans instigated a total war concept against Britain, so it was only just to respond in kind.

And now gentlemen, may I propose a toast. The Queen!

<hr width=100% size=1>It could have been worse - it could have been me.
 
Re:I\'d like to

I'll drink to the Queen cos I respect her as a person, but not to the monarchy as an institution and I'll respond on the constition when I'm sober.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I think we should ask Prince Philip, bet he would'nt be apologising for anything!


Forgive? Well perhaps.. Apologise? No I don't think so!

Nick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re:I\'d like to

Funny side. The Germans created the situation. They invaded countries, Hitler and his mates caused genocide, they killed hundreds of thousands of people in camps, for being gypsies or Jews. They invaded countries, they wanted to take over the world.

What we did to Dresden and other cities was an act of war taken in desperation. Remember that we and other countries were fighting for freedom.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Re:I\'d like to

<What we did to Dresden and other cities was an act of war taken in desperation. Remember that we and other countries were fighting for freedom.>

I don't know if we were fighting for our freedom when we removed Dresden from the face of the planet as that came later in the war.

But yes, they started the whole total war concept, blowing up civilians, sinking neutral flagged ships bound for Britain, instigating genocide etc. so we had to fight fire with fire, so no way should we apologise for our reaction to their aggression.

May I propose another toast? Ladies, Gentlemen and Officers of the Royal Navy - Bomber Harris!

<hr width=100% size=1>It could have been worse - it could have been me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top