BBO Discussion Forums: Three weeks until the election - BBO Discussion Forums

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 12:59, said:

The problem is that loyalty is assumed to have been given in the first place. For many of us loyalty was either never given or only given to the to the ideal of the Common Market, not the political clap trap that has been imposed by stealth.

cherdano, on 2015-May-27, 03:30, said:

I would venture to guess that it's worth it to the UK's fishermen.

blackshoe, on 2015-May-27, 08:43, said:

It is arguable that, today, the UK fishing industry is small fry and that what happened in the past should not figure heavily in anyone's thinking. Some of us however remember the size of the industry that was and the wholesale damage that the 'Common Fisheries Policy' did (not to mention to the 'Common Agricultural Policy' and the 'butter mountains' as well). Some younger folks who don't remember that, but are of the more green persuasion may be happy to see less trawlers in 'British' waters for the effect that it would have on fish stocks. Some of the left persuasion may be happy to see a positive effect on jobs in British ports no matter that it may be small to begin with.

Oh, and before that Sturgeon woman in Scotland thinks Scotland is going to vote yes - a lot of those jobs were Scottish jobs!

NickRW, on 2015-May-27, 09:49, said:

You expect Salmond and Sturgeon to support the fishing industry? Go fish

mike777, on 2015-May-26, 19:11, said:

When Britain joined the Common Market, my only criticism was that Europe should have joined the British Commonwealth, instead. I would even approve had we adopted the Euro, although that might still have turned out badly. There are many deplorable aspects of the EEC (especially massive corruption and a daft agricultural policy) but if Britain took a more principled and enthusiastic role, we would be better able to effect change from within.

Most fisheries are not sustainable and I believe eu has done a much better job at reducing quota than individual countries would have been able to. That said, if Stephanie is right that Spanish trawlers ignore the net rules then that is very bad.

NickRW, on 2015-May-27, 09:49, said:

Scotland is going to vote in favour of staying in Europe. Do you want to bet?

Help me understand about The Queen's Speech.

David Cameron has said he will (attempt to ) negotiate new terms with the EU and then put it to a vote as to whether or not to get out. But here in the US at least, politicians say a lot of things. Some of them happen and some of them don't. But now the Queen has said that this will happen. I understand that at least to some extent she is setting out the agenda that the Prime Minister designed. But she has made a speech. Does this mean that what was, before the speech, something like "I know what Cameron said, now we will see if he does it" has now become something that everyone can feel certain will be done?

I guess my general question, in short, is: What is the significance of The Queen's Speech?

kenberg, on 2015-May-27, 16:15, said:

The speech is written by the government. It is a tradition that the monarch instead of the Prime Minister reads it. Similar to the way the leader of the party with a majority has to ask her permission to form a government.

I've always wondered what would happen if the leader of the majority party asked the Queen for permission to form a government and she said "no".

RA officers take an oath to Parliament. RN officers' oath is to the Queen. I was told by several RN officers, back in the day, that if Parliament said "do X" and the Queen said "do Y", the RN would do Y. Never seen that tested, though.

I think Cameron would need an unusually good excuse for not holding the referendum. Of course many promises will be broken but this one was a key promise. Look what happened to the libdems when they broke a key promise. And they even had some decent excuses.

cherdano, on 2015-May-27, 13:34, said:

No I certainly don't want to bet. The Scots are in more of a "sod the English" mood than usual. Personally I wish they'd taken their independence opportunity when they had it - things would have been simpler in the long run if nothing else.

Vampyr, on 2015-May-26, 20:34, said:

In this case the british fishermen would loose the rights to fish rich West African waters empty, because only EU trawlers have the access there. ( due to the treaties with these countries).

This is only one small detail in the "sea of impacts" by In or out decission.

kenberg, on 2015-May-27, 16:15, said:

Short, practically but not technically correct answer: it's the ruling party telling the people through their MPs what they intend to get the government to do in this session of Parliament. The Queen delivers the speech because of reasons.

Long answer: Like everything to do with politics in the British Commonwealth (happens with our Governor General (of HM the Queen in Canada) or our Lieutenant Governor (of HM the Queen in Alberta) as well), this is tradition and history.

Originally (okay, from French/Norman tradition, 1066 and forward) the monarch had universal power over the realm, given to the monarch by God's hand. A bunch of influential people didn't like this and forced some limits on the monarch's power - that's the Magna Carta. One of the key aspects agreed here is that the monarch could no longer raise taxes without consultation with his advisers - which became Parliament.

So, for several hundred years, the only hold the "people" had on the King was that the King would have to summon Parliament when he needed more money. Of course Parliament attempted to get more concessions every time in exchange for the King's new taxes. One of the issues leading to Cromwell's Revolution was that the King at the time attempted to govern without calling Parliament (at one point for 17 years IIRC). One of the conditions of returning the Monarchy was that Parliament was to be regularly called.

Over many many years and acts and concessions, the people (Parliament generally at first, and in the last 150 years or so, the Commons as opposed to the Lords/Senate) have been taking more and more power; so now the right of the Monarch to propose or oppose legislation is now effectively zero (She could try something, but it would start a revolution, and the monarchy would lose. I am told, however, that HM EIIR is a very strong, frequent and sound adviser to government, and is very much listened to). However, laws are still made in the name of the Queen; the Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister *of* the Queen, and the Queen's speech, at the opening of Parliament for every session, is what her ministers and advisers intend to do over the course of the session. By reading it, of course, she is acceding to her ministers' advice. But technically, it is still the ministers advising the Queen, and the Queen making the laws (and being the ultimate power backing those laws).

This applies to other things as well; my passport, for instance, is a request in the name of the Queen herself for this citizen of hers to be allowed the privileges of travel and protection. As a result, the Queen is the only person in the British Empire [who travels] without a passport - she can ask for those privileges herself!

Hm. I wonder if Barak Obama has a passport.

Perhaps the best hope to save the fish is the trend to make eating dead fish or other dead meat unfashionable.
Think of eating Flipper for those of us old enough to remember.

I would not be surprised to see if in a few generations the idea of eating dead meat as rare as say smoking a cigar is today.


Not illegal, just somewhat rare, fancy and expensive.
-----------------

As for the role of the QUEEN, PERHAPS she acts as check on the unbridled power of the majority?

blackshoe, on 2015-May-28, 22:48, said:

Come on!

Mycroft mentioned the passport of Queen to make a point. Wondering whether Obama has passport or not, loudly in this topic, will contribute nothing but hijack to the topic in hand, which I do not participate in replies as much but very interested in reading and learning. I came from Europe to US and as much as I can read things about Europe online or TV, the information I get here in this topic (or similar topics) is coming from real people who lives there and putting in their opinion about political and economical concerns. This is the type of information I trust more than TV or and internet media who are trying to manipulate the reader for various reasons.

What does Obama having passport or not will contribute to this? And you are a forum moderator and an intelligent man, you can contribute much better than this imho.

Just another quick word about The Queen's Speech. Until this thread I had not realized that the movie title, The King's Speech, was a play on words,that could refer either to the King speaking from the throne or, the actual subject of the movie, the success of George VI in overcoming speech problems.

Anyway, thanks for the clarifications.

helene_t, on 2015-May-28, 00:57, said:

I can't imagine such an excuse. This would be political suicide for the Tories, wouldn't be?

Cameron's main problem by fullfilling his wishes in the EU seems to be the consensus he need by modifying several european treaties. In some cases there will be approval of all 27 goverments needed in other of 27 goverments and parlaments ( Treaty of Lisbon f.ex). A really Herculean task for him

Today he visits Warsaw. Polish PM already announced, she will not make any concessions In Brussels in the matter of social benefits for EU immigrants. And now?

might be off-topic, but it's an interesting question. However, the same message on US passports reads:

Quote

Note - not in the name of the Head of State. In the US, it's the country, in the person of its Secretary of State, making the request. That was the point, though; in those parts of the British Commonwealth where the Queen is still the Head of State, it's the Queen herself, not the country, making the request. Even though, of course, the powers of the head of state of Great Britain et al are *much* smaller than the Head of State of the US.