What Britains really like.....

[Guild-soicalist]

Britain (my country) unlike any other western state. Does not pretend to be a society of social equals. The Magna crater, praised as a "work of freedom, is in fact Latin for "articles of the Barons"
is mostly about taking power away from the monarch and putting it in the hands of the Bourgeoisie. The word "freeman" in it, is misguiding to to a modern reader, in the magna crater it means basically "not-slave".
The magna crater is first article in the constitution of the U.K. The second is the act of union, a unfair Treaty England bullied the economically bankrupt Scotland, and the oppressed nation of Ireland into signing. The third is the people's crater, which aloud all subjects to vote, thanks to the revolutionary actions of the cratersist movement. BUT the house of lords still stands as a testimony of the superiority of the ruling class.
A Nobel is aloud a free sect in parliament, a HUGE PENSION, and the protection of the law. Any bill to remove these disgusting laws, MUST first go though the house of lords. And the chance of the Duke of York voting to end class privilege. NONE! The so called "elections" are a sham, as all the major parties share the same ideology (centre royalism). And people can only elect the second in command (prime minister) but the head of state remains the same (Queen Elizabeth Hanover the II).
It is important for the people to get a serious republican movement started, any suggestions about how it should be run?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

the problem with a Republican movment in Britain is that it only really has one main point: to remove the monarchy, and although that is a good thing, It is not particually high on peoples agendas.

[Guild-soicalist]

Originally posted by Modern Life is [email protected] 10, 2006 08:28 pm
the problem with a Republican movment in Britain is that it only really has one main point: to remove the monarchy, and although that is a good thing, It is not particually high on peoples agendas.
What else should it adovcate? A withdrew from Iraq? A better N.H.S? Less taxs?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

The queen is a usless figure-head that many people couldnt give a toss about, as for a republican movement im not sure. Britain is not ripe for revolution yet. When capitilaism falls(which is inevitable) maybe then the majority (not just republicans) will start to question the way the country is run. But currently the situation is not to bad( the majority ar not suffering badly) But it is important to challege the way the country is run(me being a republican).

[Guild-soicalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:38 pm
The queen is a usless figure-head that many people couldnt give a toss about,
The Queen is far than a figurehead. She is the only person is the country who can make decisions concerning war and peace. Anti-war protesters should start to carry pictures of her rather than Tony. Their is far more blood on her whited gloved hands. For parliament never voted on the war, she just signed a little piece of paper and nation was at war!

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Acctually the PM decides when we go to war not the qeen

[Noah]

I'm fairly sure the monarch has to sign to approve of any legislation or action the government takes? Or am I wrong..

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Modern Life is [email protected] 10, 2006 08:57 pm
Acctually the PM decides when we go to war not the qeen
No its the queen. In reality it is the PM who makes the decision but it has to go through her.

As for a British republican movement, yea it would be cool, but little more than a distraction really. A british republic would be just as oppressive as the United Kingdom, it would just try to hide that oppression better and get support from shedding the remains of feudalism. If you feel like taking Direct Action against a few Dukes though, sounds like fun...

[MiniOswald]

The monarch signs any decision that has gone through parliament, i.e. a bill, and accepts the PMs decision to goto war out of convention. She would never actually go against it, as it would cause a constitutional crisis and the question as to whether to remove her or not would come up.

War and treaties fall under the PMs powers of patronage. The decisions are made by the PM in the name of the queen and she sticks her paw print on it.

If she were to go against it, it would be seen as going against the will of the people, although necessarily true, in theory she is disagreeing with the peoples elected representative.

[Hit The North]

The monarch signs any decision that has gone through parliament

Actually, 'the Crown' not the monarch signs legislation. To suggest otherwise produces the illusion that the Monarch actually works for a living, sitting behind a desk carefully considering and signing legislation. The Queen is more distant than that.


Even if it had the power, there is no conceivable scenario where the Crown would declare war behind the back of or above the head of the Prime Minister. Blair is squarely to blame for our immoral war of terror against Iraq.

[Noah]

Even if it had the power, there is no conceivable scenario where the Crown would declare war behind the back of or above the head of the Prime Minister. Blair is squarely to blame for our immoral war of terror against Iraq.

That is certainly true however what worries me is the fact that eventually we may end up with a Monarch who disagrees with certain bills and just won't sign them and we would not be able to do a thing.

[Dimentio]

Isenhand told me that the queen in England actually could deprive all citizens of their property if she wants to.

BTW, who would succeed the queen? Charles III or William IV?

[bolshevik butcher]

Charles, however the monarchys justa relic I wouldn't worry about it. It's power is mearly symbolic. The real power in Britain lies in the city and the CBI, they're the real class enemy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:53 pm
BTW, who would succeed the queen? Charles III or William IV?
The people.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 11, 2006 07:57 pm
Britain lies in the city and the CBI
Wahts the CBI

[bolshevik butcher]

Can't remember what it stands for but basically its the bosses federation, it's made up of all the big companies.

[The Bitter Hippy]

first up: People's Crater? Craterists? Never have i ever heard of them.

Are you referring to the reformist Chartist movement? That accomplished nothing. The right to vote was instituted in the Representation of the People and Parliamentary Reform acts between 1832 and 1928. Only 5 of the six points of the people's charter have been realised.


What few people don't really comprehend is that the british oppressive classes are not lagging behind the french and americans and most others in supporting a monarchy. If anything they made the right choice: They have one big ole symbol of nationalism that is ever present. People are used to the monarchy and generally fond of the royals.

Having said that, the aristocracy holds no power whatsoever, and the crown even less. The crown hasn't exercised its constitutional political rights since 1839, and the house of lords was crippled by the 1911 parliament act, which eliminated its veto and restricted its powers.

Finally, the heredity of the peerage is being eliminated. No more hereditary peers are appointed, and most peers right now will not leave their seat in the Lords to their heirs.

Britain is ruled by class yes, but in exactly the same way as america is. It's just that much harder to see in britain, because there is an additional screen of smoke covering the actions of the bourgeiosie.

[MiniOswald]

Originally posted by Noah(pbuh)@December 11, 2006 07:49 pm


That is certainly true however what worries me is the fact that eventually we may end up with a Monarch who disagrees with certain bills and just won't sign them and we would not be able to do a thing.
Parliament wouldnt stand for it, especially if these bills were passed by a large majority, theyd remove the powers of the monarch or the monarchy entirely. Political parties dont want kings and queens meddling in their affairs.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Guild-[email protected] 10, 2006 08:35 pm
What else should it adovcate? A withdrew from Iraq? A better N.H.S? Less taxs?
Maybe class war and the abolition of capitalism? :rolleyes:

But yea, a better NHS and withdrawal from Iraq would be reasonable, and very topical. Because, even if we did get rid of the Queen and the monarchy, there would be no noticeable difference to the working class.

In fact, even if we got rid of the state itself, the only changes would be negative. Because although we look at the ruling class as one body of individuals scratching each other backs, the reality is different. The capitalists, the rich business owners, have more power, influence, and political immunity than the members of state. The state, is essentially, nothing more than a mediator that defends capitalism's, and perhaps to an extent, the nations, interests.

I don't think I'd bother fighting for a republican movement, against the monarchy. I'd rather fight against capitalism.

[RebelDog]

Can't remember what it stands for but basically its the bosses federation, it's made up of all the big companies.

Confederation of British Industry. They are like a trade union for the rich capitalist class. Tony Blair bends his knee to their every whim, whilst anything trade unions demand is just ignored. The CBI is indeed a huge class enemy. The offensive, malodorous, Digby Jones was their chairman in recent years and was never off the tv making his demands and generally badmouthing the workers and how lazy we all are. I hate him almost as much as Thatcher. I hope he chokes to death on a brillo pad.

[Patchd]

No its the queen. In reality it is the PM who makes the decision but it has to go through her.

Nono, the PM has the Royal Perogrative (sp???), he/she can decide to go to war whenever he/she chooses, and althought it has to be "accepted" by the monarch, they still have little choice as the PM has the Royal Perogrative and the monarch has to "respect the decision of the people" (in this case, they see Tony Blair as being representative of the people) :rolleyes:.
But yeah, I remember when I did an individual protest against the Queen last year, holding a placard, brandishing the red flag, she came to visit the school opposite mine (the other school is a private school), the conservative teachers didn't like it, I got into a bit of trouble, and even some of the students in my year didn't like me after that :lol: