jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (02/14/86)
*** REPLACE THIS MONARCHY WITH DEMOCRACY *** Garry Wiegand & John Hogg (by email) say that the British monarchy and the House Of Lords have no power in the British government. Therefore, we can say that they perform no function. If they perform no function like the bellringer who was supposed to warn of Napoleon's attack and was funded until 1945 (mentioned in another article), it would seem prudent to abolish the British monarchy and the House Of Lords and thus save the British taxpayer billions of pounds or use the funds to relieve the suffering of the tens of thousands of homeless people in England. A number of Englishmen have already suggested this, one of them was even a member of the House Of Lords and another is the Chairman of the Greater London Council! "These people know nothing of democracy." - Margaret Thatcher
jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (02/17/86)
>> Frank Adams has repeatedly asserted the claim that England's >>"constitutional monarchy" is a democracy. To answer this I quote someone who >>has lived under British Rule throughout his life. In his book (published by >>Mercier Press) "An End to Silence", Reverend Desmond Wilson states: >>... > > If I believed Reverend Wilson I would be unsure that I had ever lived in a > democracy. At least he's got you started thinking about your government. As I stated in my article about forms of government, the U.S. is not a democracy but a republic and other national governments similarly are not democracies because of the logistical problems of setting up a democracy before the age of computers. There might be a case for Canada being a republic, but this requires further study. > I'm Canadian. The Queen is Canada's sovereign, represented by the > Governor-General. Would you please expand on this statement? What are the duties, rights and privileges of the "sovereign". What real power does the sovereign or her representative have in making the decisions of government? How do these rights compare with the rights of the average Canadian citizen? When there is a difference of opinion on matters of government, whose will prevails under various scenarios? > Canada has a Senate modeled after the House of Lords - but our Senate isn't > even hereditary, it consists mainly of people appointed by the last > government. Doesn't the appointment of members of the Senate by the Prime Minister give too much power to a restricted club of professional politicians? > And yet people go to the polls, and even manage to defeat the Liberal party > at times. > > There are some psychological advantages to a democracy ruled by a > constitutional monarch. The monarch gives the masses who need a god-figure > somebody to worship who doesn't have any real political power. Are we talking about: 1. voodoo 2. Big Brothers mind control 3. modern government 4. all of the above Please don't drag people's psychiatric problems into national government. There are enough problems there already. > Q: would Richard Nixon have survived Watergate if he'd been a more > charismatic figure? Who cares? > Perhaps - to a frighteningly large number of Americans the President can > do no wrong. Too true, Too true! > The monarch siphons off this element, and slightly improves the rationality > of politics. I really doubt this statement, do you have any evidence to back it up or are you just verbalizing some vague glimmerings in your mind? When the Queen awards the Order of the British Empire to the commanding officer of the Royal Parachute Regiment for their actions in killing 14 unarmed and innocent civilians on "Bloody Sunday" in Derry on January 30, 1972 which were described by the coroner as acts of murder; when the Queens consort, Prince Phillip, wearing a beret and camoflage battle fatigues, pays a personal visit to an UDR (Ulster Defense Regiment) unit whose members have been officially found to be involved in a string of sectarian murders in their off-duty hours; how does this improve the rationality of politics? J. M. McGhee
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/22/86)
>> I'm Canadian. The Queen is Canada's sovereign, represented by the >> Governor-General. > > Would you please expand on this statement? What are the duties, rights >and privileges of the "sovereign". What real power does the sovereign or her >representative have in making the decisions of government? How do these rights >compare with the rights of the average Canadian citizen? When there is a >difference of opinion on matters of government, whose will prevails under >various scenarios? In my ignorance, I was surprised to discover that during WW2 the "Sovereign" played a role as a kind of special advisor to secret intelligence agencies. Does anyone know about this? Do such things still go on?