ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 12th December 2018, 07:36 PM   #481
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
ETA: But no, people here think 1 and 2 are out the window and unwritten, unenforceable rules are what we are governed by.
It's not just people here. The Queen thinks so too. Except unwritten rules can be very enforceable, which is rather the point.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 08:29 PM   #482
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not just people here. The Queen thinks so too. Except unwritten rules can be very enforceable, which is rather the point.

The Governments and probably 99% of the population of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand probably think so as well. But what would most of the British Commonwealth World know when Itchy Boy knows the real truth?


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 08:40 PM   #483
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not just people here. The Queen thinks so too. Except unwritten rules can be very enforceable, which is rather the point.
Unwritten rules of the Conventions are not enforceable by any legal means. The courts can't rule on them.
They're only enforceable by brute force - the law of the jungle.

Give us an example of an unwritten rule that is enforceable.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 12th December 2018 at 08:43 PM. Reason: clarity
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 08:48 PM   #484
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
The Governments and probably 99% of the population of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand probably think so as well. But what would most of the British Commonwealth World know when Itchy Boy knows the real truth?


Norm
So, if enough people believe something, it must be true?
Ask any Constitutional lawyer or scholar if the court can pass down decisions based on the unwritten rules of the Convention.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 09:11 PM   #485
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, if enough people believe something, it must be true?
Ask any Constitutional lawyer or scholar if the court can pass down decisions based on the unwritten rules of the Convention.

Find me one Court Case where the unwritten rules and conventions that are generally accepted by the entire British Commonwealth, the Queen included, have been challenged and overturned due specifically to the written Constitution and stop hiding behind your desire for the rest of us to prove what you want to be true.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 12th December 2018 at 09:12 PM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 09:50 PM   #486
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Find me one Court Case where the unwritten rules and conventions that are generally accepted by the entire British Commonwealth, the Queen included, have been challenged and overturned due specifically to the written Constitution and stop hiding behind your desire for the rest of us to prove what you want to be true.

Norm
Again, unwritten rules cannot be ruled on by the court. A case based on them would never get heard by the court in the first place. I gave an example of that regarding Conrad Black wanting to accept a Lordship against the wishes of the PM. Long story short, the court wouldn't hear the case because it fell under the Conventions. And it makes total sense. How can the court rule on a law or rule or statute or regulation that is not codified anywhere? ETA: If it's not written, it's not a law.

That's why the example you ask for doesn't exist.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 12th December 2018 at 09:58 PM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 10:04 PM   #487
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,603
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
My guess is The Crown would propose broad objectives from time to time that the gov't or successive gov'ts would implement as they see fit.
What are these "broad objectives?"

Peace, order and good government perhaps?

How are they communicated so that successive governments implement this master plan? How in the name of Alpha Flight has no one in over 300 years in multiple countries ever exposed the secret?

What broad objective did Edward VIII implement and if he held the power you believe that he did, why did he not bring his case to the people as he wanted so that he could remain on the throne? Why did he not use his vast authority as the Commander-in-Chief of all the Imperial forces to prevent what happened to him?

Why did James II cut and run when Parliament told him "no?"

Why was Charles I unable to simply command the entirety of the military forces of Britain and defeat the rebel Parliamentarians?

The Rule of Parliamentary Supremacy has been in effect since Charles II. To date, other than James II, everyone accepts that it is a very real limit on the soveriegn's power except yourself.

You seem to believe that over 300 years of history and convention has been false and that power has been secretly employed to further the ends of a family, and that no one has broken the code of silence in all this time? That is "The illuminati control both the bankers and the commies" level conspiracy theory crap.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 10:18 PM   #488
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,603
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again, unwritten rules cannot be ruled on by the court. A case based on them would never get heard by the court in the first place. I gave an example of that regarding Conrad Black wanting to accept a Lordship against the wishes of the PM. Long story short, the court wouldn't hear the case because it fell under the Conventions. And it makes total sense. How can the court rule on a law or rule or statute or regulation that is not codified anywhere? ETA: If it's not written, it's not a law.

That's why the example you ask for doesn't exist.
First, the Queen did not grant him a peerage until after he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

The ruling you referred to was heard by the courts - the ruling given was that the Nickel Resolution applied to Canadian citizens, but not citizens of other countries, and that the British PM could put forth a British citizen for honours for their work in Britain. Black's dual citizenship is what created that little ruling.

Second, courts rule on matters that are unwritten all the time - tort law is a prime example of the common law - unwritten and based on precedent.

Did you sleep through civics class?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 10:44 PM   #489
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again, unwritten rules cannot be ruled on by the court. A case based on them would never get heard by the court in the first place. I gave an example of that regarding Conrad Black wanting to accept a Lordship against the wishes of the PM. Long story short, the court wouldn't hear the case because it fell under the Conventions. And it makes total sense. How can the court rule on a law or rule or statute or regulation that is not codified anywhere? ETA: If it's not written, it's not a law.

That's why the example you ask for doesn't exist.
Give it up! You no longer have a point.

The Queen has supreme power under the constitution. She does not use this power either covertly or overtly except under direction from the Prime Minister. There is no risk that she will ever use them independently.

/thread.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 11:04 PM   #490
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again, unwritten rules cannot be ruled on by the court. A case based on them would never get heard by the court in the first place.

So, if Canada maintains it's unwritten rule that it will not give practical day to day power over the Armed Forces to the Queen, she cannot do anything about it.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 11:26 PM   #491
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,422
This is descending into Trumpian levels of farce. But let's play along with a hypothetical; it will be fun.

First, let's set some premises: The Queen is the supremely powerful head of state of Canada. She is also the supremely powerful head of state of Australia and New Zealand. And she commands the armed forces of each of those nations. According to their constitutions, the government and the armed forces must do her will.

Now let's pose a scenario: Canada has insulted Australia's honour by calling their kangaroos overgrown jack-rabbits. In response, Australia has insulted Canada's honour by calling their beaver a dumb flat-tailed rat. Nobody is going to back down, and it leads to each of the countries calling for war on the other. Each country gets out their battle tank and slingshots. Calls in the UN for peace are defied. Patriotic songs are sung and beer drunk. They both go to a war footing...the whistle blows, IT'S ******* ON!!

Questions:
-- Which country does the Queen choose to declare war from?
-- Can the Queen order a sneak attack by one side against the other that she does not know about?
-- Can the Queen order both countries to stop fighting? To treat? To surrender?
-- Does the Queen command all the armies on both sides?
-- Can she override any of the generals' decisions on either side?
-- Can she order a third country she runs like New Zealand into the affray on either side?

Because this is the silliness that our young protagonist's position takes.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:37 AM   #492
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
First, the Queen did not grant him a peerage until after he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

The ruling you referred to was heard by the courts - the ruling given was that the Nickel Resolution applied to Canadian citizens, but not citizens of other countries, and that the British PM could put forth a British citizen for honours for their work in Britain. Black's dual citizenship is what created that little ruling.

Second, courts rule on matters that are unwritten all the time - tort law is a prime example of the common law - unwritten and based on precedent.

Did you sleep through civics class?
I'll have to put Conrad's case on hold until I have a chance to review the details.

In the meantime, there's this from the Library of Parliament page on Constitutional Conventions.

The very first sentence reads, "Conventions are rules of the Constitution; however, they are not enforced by the courts because they are not laws."

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/Teac...onventions.pdf
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:04 AM   #493
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Give it up! You no longer have a point.

The Queen has supreme power under the constitution. She does not use this power either covertly or overtly except under direction from the Prime Minister. There is no risk that she will ever use them independently.

/thread.
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling. Ever. It's an absurd notion, I know.

Maybe if I think about it long and hard enough, I'll come around to seeing that it's not uncommon for a Sovereign who's above the law and legally holds supreme power, to obey their subordinates.

Or maybe some medication would help.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:08 AM   #494
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling. Ever. It's an absurd notion, I know.

Maybe if I think about it long and hard enough, I'll come around to seeing that it's not uncommon for a Sovereign who's above the law and legally holds supreme power, to obey their subordinates.

Or maybe some medication would help.

Where did you ever come up with the idea that the Queen takes orders from an underling?


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:26 AM   #495
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling.
It's called "acting on the advice of the Prime Minister" and she always does.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:39 AM   #496
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling. Ever. It's an absurd notion, I know.
Charles I thought the same thing, that's why he got buried with his head separate from his body.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:42 AM   #497
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
This is descending into Trumpian levels of farce. But let's play along with a hypothetical; it will be fun.

First, let's set some premises: The Queen is the supremely powerful head of state of Canada. She is also the supremely powerful head of state of Australia and New Zealand. And she commands the armed forces of each of those nations. According to their constitutions, the government and the armed forces must do her will.

Now let's pose a scenario: Canada has insulted Australia's honour by calling their kangaroos overgrown jack-rabbits. In response, Australia has insulted Canada's honour by calling their beaver a dumb flat-tailed rat. Nobody is going to back down, and it leads to each of the countries calling for war on the other. Each country gets out their battle tank and slingshots. Calls in the UN for peace are defied. Patriotic songs are sung and beer drunk. They both go to a war footing...the whistle blows, IT'S ******* ON!!

Questions:
-- Which country does the Queen choose to declare war from?
-- Can the Queen order a sneak attack by one side against the other that she does not know about?
-- Can the Queen order both countries to stop fighting? To treat? To surrender?
-- Does the Queen command all the armies on both sides?
-- Can she override any of the generals' decisions on either side?
-- Can she order a third country she runs like New Zealand into the affray on either side?

Because this is the silliness that our young protagonist's position takes.
In Canada and Britain, the authority to declare war rests with the Queen. I assume it's the same in all the Commonwealth Countries that have a similar Constitution.

So she could simply refuse to declare war.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:49 AM   #498
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In Canada and Britain, the authority to declare war rests with the Queen. I assume it's the same in all the Commonwealth Countries that have a similar Constitution.

So she could simply refuse to declare war.
In the mean time, the first Australian navy ship is sunk by a Canadian submarine and the Australian airforce bombs some targets in Vancouver. Flags with kangaroos and beavers are proudly hoisted on both sides of the Pacific. people are waiting in lines to enlist in the armed forces. On both sides it's a truly popular war to fight.
Now what for the Queen to do?

Yes. The premise is silly, but let's roll with it anyway.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:56 AM   #499
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In Canada and Britain, the authority to declare war rests with the Queen. I assume it's the same in all the Commonwealth Countries that have a similar Constitution.

So she could simply refuse to declare war.
Again Charles I is a good example. If he had this 'ultimate' power why did he not just order Parliament to stop fighting?
How did Parliament start all that war without him giving it the green card.
Your guesses here?

And I would note that unlike our modern Queen, Charles I had real actual power.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:05 AM   #500
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Where did you ever come up with the idea that the Queen takes orders from an underling?
Norm
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."

She's the Sovereign above the gov't and the PM is the 'advisor'.
I'd say that puts the PM in a subordinate position.
psion10 says she always takes the PM's 'advice', the inference being that she MUST do so.

Isn't that tantamount to taking orders?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:08 AM   #501
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."

She's the Sovereign above the gov't and the PM is the 'advisor'.
I'd say that puts the PM in a subordinate position.
psion10 says she always takes the PM's 'advice', the inference being that she MUST do so.

Isn't that tantamount to taking orders?
Charles I also refused to take orders from his subordinates. They made the final point and cut his head off.
This permanently changed who had the final word and actual power.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:11 AM   #502
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
In the mean time, the first Australian navy ship is sunk by a Canadian submarine and the Australian airforce bombs some targets in Vancouver. Flags with kangaroos and beavers are proudly hoisted on both sides of the Pacific. people are waiting in lines to enlist in the armed forces. On both sides it's a truly popular war to fight.
Now what for the Queen to do?

Yes. The premise is silly, but let's roll with it anyway.
I think she'd have only two choices. Send in peacekeeping troops to try to stop it, or just lay back and let them duke it out. I don't think she would take sides.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:14 AM   #503
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't think she would take sides.
I know what she would do. Nothing. Because there is nothing she could do. Which funnily enough she has been consistently doing for a very long time.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:20 AM   #504
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In Canada and Britain, the authority to declare war rests with the Queen. I assume it's the same in all the Commonwealth Countries that have a similar Constitution.

So she could simply refuse to declare war.

Of course you can find documentation as to how it was her decision to send warships and troops to the Falklands in 1982, and announced that the British were going to have a little war with Argentina, can't you?


Any on line reference will do nicely.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:31 AM   #505
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think she'd have only two choices. Send in peacekeeping troops to try to stop it, or just lay back and let them duke it out. I don't think she would take sides.
Hmmm.
I'd expected something like ordering both armies to lay down their weapons.
No matter how popular a war may be, if the armed forces aren't allowed, there will be verylittle fighting.

Yet somehow, you didn't see this as an option for the queen.
Strange.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:37 AM   #506
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Of course you can find documentation as to how it was her decision to send warships and troops to the Falklands in 1982, and announced that the British were going to have a little war with Argentina, can't you?
Any on line reference will do nicely.

Norm
If you're referring to Norman's scenario, Argentina isn't and wasn't a Commonwealth country.

Aside from that, Wiki says, "In the United Kingdom, only the monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the royal prerogative."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...United_Kingdom

I did have the original document with her signature in blue ink, but my dog ate it.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:42 AM   #507
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Hmmm.
I'd expected something like ordering both armies to lay down their weapons.
No matter how popular a war may be, if the armed forces aren't allowed, there will be verylittle fighting.

Yet somehow, you didn't see this as an option for the queen.
Strange.
Somebody (was it you?) suggested the war may take place despite the Queen's refusal to declare it. In that case, they've already disregarded her orders and, possibly committed treason. So why would they suddenly obey her order to lay down weapons? That's why I didn't see that option.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 13th December 2018 at 02:42 AM. Reason: clarity
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:42 AM   #508
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,686
Performance art. Well done Itchy Boy. Time to fess up mate. You have been taking the piss since post one.

It’s the only thing that makes sense.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:50 AM   #509
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you're referring to Norman's scenario, Argentina isn't and wasn't a Commonwealth country.

Aside from that, Wiki says, "In the United Kingdom, only the monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the royal prerogative."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...United_Kingdom

I did have the original document with her signature in blue ink, but my dog ate it.

I'm not referring to Norman's scenario. I am referring to the real conflict between Great Britain and Argentina in 1982 that led to people, you know, dying in a real war, and was asking you to provide evidence that the Queen ordered it as you claimed she was the only one who could.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 13th December 2018 at 02:51 AM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:55 AM   #510
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Somebody (was it you?) suggested the war may take place despite the Queen's refusal to declare it. In that case, they've already disregarded her orders and, possibly committed treason. So why would they suddenly obey her order to lay down weapons? That's why I didn't see that option.
Youthfull enthousiasm? acting in the heat of the moment? Before orders were able to be given?

But yes. Why would they listen to the queen? Hmm. We wonder why that could possibly be.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:24 AM   #511
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,603
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."

She's the Sovereign above the gov't and the PM is the 'advisor'.
I'd say that puts the PM in a subordinate position.
psion10 says she always takes the PM's 'advice', the inference being that she MUST do so.

Isn't that tantamount to taking orders?
Short answer - "Yes."

Long answer - "Yes, the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy which was established by the English Civil War and has been part of the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom and the former colonies and dominions ever since very clearly indicates that the sovereign will not go against the advice of their ministers."
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:37 AM   #512
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."

She's the Sovereign above the gov't and the PM is the 'advisor'.
I'd say that puts the PM in a subordinate position.
psion10 says she always takes the PM's 'advice', the inference being that she MUST do so.

Isn't that tantamount to taking orders?
Again you play semantics.

You have repeatedly been challenged to show examples where the Queen doesn't act on the advice of the PM and you have failed every time.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:54 AM   #513
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Post #493 Today, 07:04 PM


Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling. Ever. It's an absurd notion, I know.

Maybe if I think about it long and hard enough, I'll come around to seeing that it's not uncommon for a Sovereign who's above the law and legally holds supreme power, to obey their subordinates.

Or maybe some medication would help.

Post #494 Today 07:08 PM


Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Where did you ever come up with the idea that the Queen takes orders from an underling?


Norm

Post #495 Today 07:26 PM


Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's called "acting on the advice of the Prime Minister" and she always does.

Post #500 Today 08:05 PM


Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."


So you got the idea that Queen Elizabeth takes orders from an underling from scion10. He posted his response 24 minutes after you posted the idea and it was a response to the very post where you put the idea. That's a really neat trick you have going for you.

Now how about posting where you actually got this idea.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 13th December 2018 at 03:57 AM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 04:15 AM   #514
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
... In that case, they've already disregarded her orders and, possibly committed treason. ...
Funnily enough Charles I was convicted of High Treason and was then executed.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:13 AM   #515
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,422
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In Canada and Britain, the authority to declare war rests with the Queen. I assume it's the same in all the Commonwealth Countries that have a similar Constitution.

So she could simply refuse to declare war.
No, not all Commonwealth countries have the Queen as head of state. I would have thought you would know this. Australia and NZ, like Canada, do, Currently. South Africa, India and Pakistan do not.

Of course, this war might change things. Because each of them has sunk the other's ship now, and dropped their only bomb on a rival city. Shots have been traded, people killed.

More seriously, each of the Prime Ministers has gotten cabinet and parliamentary approval to declare war. This is now their formal advice to their HoS. The Queen can't avoid it. All the conditions required to declare war exist.

So once again, these questions:
-- Which country does the Queen choose to declare war from? How does she decide?
-- Can the Queen order a sneak attack by one side against the other that she does not know about?
-- Can the Queen order both countries to stop fighting? To treat? To surrender?
-- Does the Queen command all the armies on both sides?
-- Can she override any of the generals' decisions on either side?
-- Can she order a third country she runs like New Zealand into the affray on either side?


Also, do you really think of the Queen like mom telling the kids to stop fighting? Because that's just adorable!
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 13th December 2018 at 05:24 AM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:20 AM   #516
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,422
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think she'd have only two choices. Send in peacekeeping troops to try to stop it...
What peacekeeping troops are these at the Queen's direct personal command?
In which country do they live?
By what authority does she command them?
Who funds, trains, arms and houses them?

Or do you think she can just magic a whole army up from thin air and send it wherever she wants?

Quote:
, or just lay back and let them duke it out. I don't think she would take sides.
But she's the leader of these countries. That's what you are insisting. So she MUST lead them, in peace or war. She must be their fearless leader. To act otherwise means she will be a traitor. And she must be so for both opposing countries AT THE SAME TIME.

How to solve this dilemma! Hmmm...
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 06:57 AM   #517
Camillus
Critical Thinker
 
Camillus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you're referring to Norman's scenario, Argentina isn't and wasn't a Commonwealth country.

Aside from that, Wiki says, "In the United Kingdom, only the monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the royal prerogative."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...United_Kingdom

I did have the original document with her signature in blue ink, but my dog ate it.
Royal prerogative is code for "The government does it in the name of the monarch but the monarch has no say in the matter". It's the result of having a governmental system in which the titular head of state has no power but has a constitutional role. It has been like that in the UK since the early Nineteenth Century.
__________________
Live long and prosper.
Camillus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:01 AM   #518
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,111
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think my problem is that I cannot believe anyone with supreme power is going to take orders from an underling. Ever. It's an absurd notion, I know.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
From psion10. He says, "It's called 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister' and she always does."

She's the Sovereign above the gov't and the PM is the 'advisor'.
I'd say that puts the PM in a subordinate position.
psion10 says she always takes the PM's 'advice', the inference being that she MUST do so.

Isn't that tantamount to taking orders?

Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of a "polite fiction"?


Quote:
A polite fiction is a social scenario in which all participants are aware of a truth, but pretend to believe in some alternative version of events to avoid conflict or embarrassment.


Hell, even the Simpsons did it...


Quote:
Bart enlists Nelson's other victims, including the bulk of his friends and classmates, in his army and trains them for combat. Herman commands from Bart's treehouse as Bart leads his forces into battle. Ambushing Nelson and his sidekicks, they commence saturation bombing with water balloons. Nelson's thugs surrender, and Nelson is taken prisoner. He threatens to beat up Bart as soon as he is untied. Herman drafts the armistice treaty, which states that Nelson will retain his position and name, but will not hold any actual power. Bart and Nelson sign the treaty; afterward, Marge enters with cupcakes, and peace prevails.


You should also investigate the notion of a "legal fiction".
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:49 AM   #519
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,682
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think she'd have only two choices. Send in peacekeeping troops to try to stop it, or just lay back and let them duke it out. I don't think she would take sides.
What happened to taking them to court?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:57 AM   #520
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Post #493 Today, 07:04 PM

Post #494 Today 07:08 PM

Post #495 Today 07:26 PM


Post #500 Today 08:05 PM

So you got the idea that Queen Elizabeth takes orders from an underling from scion10. He posted his response 24 minutes after you posted the idea and it was a response to the very post where you put the idea. That's a really neat trick you have going for you.

Now how about posting where you actually got this idea.

Norm
psion10 has been saying it all along. I only quoted the most recent instance. I'm pretty sure others have mention 'the advice of' too.

I have no need or desire to resort to 'tricks'. Tricks are not a very effective way of engaging people when you're trying to show them they've already been tricked.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.