republicans, over here!

[arghpleasestop]

OK, it's been 24 hours now.

Can I say it yet?

Long live the king - any king! - you must be joking. How on earth can it be the 21st century and there is still a hereditary monarchy of 'special people with the right blood' who wear crowns, live in palaces and play a formal role in politics?

I can see from other threads that others feel upset and are following it all closely. This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

@Discovereads
"But you were unaware it is a universal bad..."

No. And I have no idea why you jumped to that conclusion. Also, you seem to have confused sovereignty of state and the sovereign monarch as a private individual. Or it is more "whataboutery". We're talking about the latter, only you are talking about the former.

You seemed unaware sovereign immunity even existed...

Again, no. And again, also irrelevant.

"You are trying to say that Queen Elizabeth had been secretly influencing each law to get special unprecedented exemptions when that’s clearly not the case. "

No, I'm not - did you miss the bit where I said, 160 laws, mutiple times?
That's clearly not "each law".
But do please point to the clause in the Education Act, for example, that specifically states that it does not apply to the sovereign (or her majesty) in a private capacity.

"I don’t disagree with Prof Thomas Adams, the immunity from being sued in court as a private individual is always of economic benefit."

Great, and yes it is. The exemptions are not all to do with not being sued.

"That’s not the motivation though...
... the European Court of Human Rights to preserve their sovereign immunity."

Completely missing the point. Again. Losing the will to explain again.
But nobody is talking about ancient ideas or history, apart from you.
Nor the sovereign state, nor Russia (again!), nor the ECHR.,

This is like you having joined a discussion about cats and failing to make a point to do with actual cats but throwing in a comment about dogs and then trying to change the subject to elephants.

Anyway, your last comment does, at least, explain your complete lack of logical argument throughout the entire thread and it also explains your patronising comments (which at least one other person has also pointed out to you)

I really don't know why you've taken it upon yourself to decide what other people's level of knowledge is but it is kind of weird.

But it's quite apparent that you often don't really have a point, other than perhaps to circle through irrelevancies and pointing out the obvious.
I've lost track of how many times you have mentioned China or Russia. The Mariah Carey comparison was quite funny, though, even though it was, as ever irrelevant.

But I think it's time I stepped off your merry-go-round.

@VivX
Also, you seem to have confused sovereignty of state and the sovereign monarch as a private individual. Or it is more "whataboutery". We're talking about the latter, only you are talking about the former.

With respect @VivX it is you who are hopelessly confused. We can’t be talking about “the sovereign monarch” because we don’t have a sovereign monarch nor have we had one since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. We have a Parliamentary Sovereignty aka sovereign Parliament and incidentally, this is one of the most important written parts of our Constitution, which you will find in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Also, you have misused the term “sovereignty of State” as that term refers to the State’s legislative, executive and judiciary powers, not the concept of sovereign immunity. So you see I’m not assuming your level of knowledge, it’s quite clear in what you write, especially your misuse of technical terms that you have gaps in your knowledge.

No, I'm not - did you miss the bit where I said, 160 laws, mutiple times?
That's clearly not "each law".

Fine, you know what I meant, but I will rephrase anyway. You were trying to say that Queen Elizabeth II had been secretly influencing 160 laws to get special unprecedented exemptions when that’s clearly not the case. In asserting this, you did not even mention sovereign immunity which is a Constitutional convention of ancient origins and the actual reason behind these exemptions.

But nobody is talking about ancient ideas or history, apart from you.
So what. It’s relevant because it shows up your narrative to be born of ignorance. You accuse our late Queen of back door shady deals without even understanding the very exemptions you are pointing at as evidence are literally due to our Constitution and not any nefarious actions by our late Queen.

I've lost track of how many times you have mentioned China or Russia

You initiated a discussion of republics though. You said to me “so we should never try again, ever, despite a republic system working perfectly well for lots of other countries...” So I have mentioned & referenced countries for which a republic is not working well for its people and also republics where sovereign immunity exists (which you mistakenly thought only exists in a monarchy). You have not been able to counter with a single country where a republic is working “perfectly well” or has no sovereign immunity.

So, its only natural you’d take up the last resort position of insulting me with a cute story about cats, dogs and elephants and calling everything you can’t quite follow “whataboutery” or a “logical fallacy”. Perhaps you should step off.

Which are very different things.

So, its only natural you’d take up the last resort position of insulting me with a cute story about cats, dogs and elephants and calling everything you can’t quite follow “whataboutery” or a “logical fallacy”. Perhaps you should step off

Really.

It was quite obvious that people were talking about the Queen having immunity from laws.

I stated that it should be possible to write a Constitution so everyone was equal to the law and you then started talking about countries withdrawing from the EHCR. Which is not about individuals,

The Monarch - as a person - should follow UK laws and be accountable under UK laws.

As should any Head of State of this country. Employment laws etc should also apply to their household

I don't think that's a radical concept and it's completely different to countries withdrawing from the EHCR.

You have not been able to counter with a single country where a republic is working “perfectly well” or has no sovereign immunity

So if the Irish President or the German President broke the law of their country, do you think they would be immune from prosecution in their country?

If the Irish President murdered someone, would they say "Sorry, Head of State, you can't do anything?"

So if the Irish President or the German President broke the law of their country, do you think they would be immune from prosecution in their country?

can't speak for Ireland but in Germany I think they have to have left office for a prosecution to take place.

But. The assumption in the quote is that people in those countries are happy about sovereign immunity. Maybe they aren't? Look at how Trump is trying his best to avoid prosecution as an ex-president and in his eyes above the law, and how many people are disagreeing with him? Presidents are impeached occasionally, exactly so they can be prosecuted.

@cakeorwine
It was quite obvious that people were talking about the Queen having immunity from laws. Yes and that is due to sovereign immunity. That is also quite obvious.

I stated that it should be possible to write a Constitution so everyone was equal to the law and you then started talking about countries withdrawing from the EHCR. Which is not about individuals
I responded to your post stating that it is possible to write anything, but it’s not likely to happen because it never has happened yet.

The Monarch - as a person - should follow UK laws and be accountable under UK laws.. and I agreed and agree with all this, as is blatantly obvious, I’m not arguing for sovereign immunity.

I don't think that's a radical concept and it's completely different to countries withdrawing from the EHCR. It’s not a radical concept, totally agree. But the two are linked because sovereign immunity applies to not just individuals but also the state (and in case of China, state owned corporations). Countries withdrawing from the EHCR are exercising their sovereign immunity just like the head of state being exempted from prosecution for violating certain laws. It is all part of the same concept of sovereign immunity.

No, they are all aspects of sovereign immunity. They are not “very different things”

FFS

The Monarch - as a person - should follow UK laws and be accountable under UK laws.. and I agreed and agree with all this, as is blatantly obvious, I’m not arguing for sovereign immunity

That's all we need.

Can we move on now from this derail.

I think we all agree that a Head of State should be accountable under the law of their country and institutions should follow the law of their country. Including employment law

How about you look it up for once? You have posted repeated nonsense like we don’t have a written Constitution, when we do. As I said earlier sovereign immunity comes in different types and is present to different degrees in the countries worldwide. In some countries individuals with sovereign immunity (heads of state, government officials elected and unelected) are immune from both civil and criminal prosecution in some cases only in the course of their official duties, in others even in their private lives. There is no one set application of it, much like while all countries have laws against killing another human being, they do not all have the same definition of murder vs justified homicide vs manslaughter or even have all these categories of killing.

There are different views on whether we have a written Constition.

Most countres - apart from Israel and New Zealand - have a single document - a written Constitution - which is what I and other people are talking about.

It's also clear that people were talking about the Monarch being accountable under the law. Not countries.

It will come. Maybe in my lifetime.

Yes well I said it literally pages ago when @VivX was banging on about my lack of an argument for it, as she/he/they was for some reason saw my lack of arguing for it as me failing to argue for it.

I don’t think it’s a derail to challenge her on her accusations that our late Queen was engaging in shady back door deals by bringing to light the concept of sovereign immunity.

On the subject of U.K. individuals with it, MPs still have a bit of sovereign immunity as well. They are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for slander or libel for anything they say while in office. All our judges and justices also have judicial immunity- another type of sovereign immunity- that makes them immune from any prosecution for anything they did in their official capacity- ie damages for handing down a guilty verdict when the person is later exonerated. This was especially powerful when we had the death sentence….All our ambassadors and diplomats have diplomatic immunity, yet another kind of sovereign immunity- where they cannot be charged with any civil or criminal prosecution while abroad in their assigned foreign post. I’m sure I’m missing a few more examples, but these are off the top of my head a list of individuals in addition to the monarch that enjoy some degree of sovereign immunity.

cakeorwine
I stated that it should be possible to write a Constitution so everyone was equal to the law

April 2022
THE SUPREME COURT has ruled that the President of Ireland, his staff, and the Council of State are immune from EU regulations requiring the public disclosure of information relating to the environment.

The Court said that by making information and documentation related to the work of the President subject to obligatory disclosure under the AIE regulations would make the President answerable to the courts.

This, the Court said, was precluded under Article 13 of the Irish Constitution.

www.thejournal.ie/president-immune-from-eu-regulations-public-disclosure-environmental-information-5752012-Apr2022/

I was just thinking about you @Clavinova For some reason

No there are not “different views” on whether we have a written Constitution. What you were calling a written Constitution is actually called a codified Constitution. See, you can’t even get your terms right even though it’s been explained to you by multiple posters. A written Constitution means a Constitution that is fully or partially written down. A codified Constitution means a Constitution that is only written down and is in one single legal document.

Yes it was clear that people were talking about the monarch being immune to various laws, as I have been talking about that too. But there’s nothing wrong with explaining fully what sovereign immunity is, especially since you and Vivx were labouring under the misconception that no monarchy= no sovereign immunity when that is far from the actual reality in countries with no monarchy. And Vivx was trying to cast the monarchs immunity as the result of shady deals by the back door instigated by our late Queen- which is a completely false allegation.

cakeorwine

I thought you might enjoy this as well - Leo Varadkar June 2022;

"The President is somebody who's always been and is often outspoken in his views,"
"Because he's a president, he is above politics, above party politics and is immune in many ways from criticism and scrutiny."

@Discovereads
Apologies, I ws lazily replying in kind and also trying to edit down my word count but I wish I had stuck to my own wording because I was talking very specifically about exemptions that are actually written into 160 laws but NOT in others.
I also said nothing about immunity being unprecedented either - because that has nothing to do with my point

The rest I have already answered or explained at length or it is in the Guardian link.
Logical fallacies simply arise when you make faulty reasoning and not because you think (or want to think) that someone doesn't understand something.

As aside, I didn't initiate a discussion on republics, YOU were actually the first person here to talk of "a republic" apart from the OP - that is why I and others were REPLYING to you on the subject of a republic.

Why on earth are you now tagging me in an argument with someone else.

I don't need to be notified that you're now arguing with someone else.

In Ireland, the president can be impeached, for example for a criminal offence or for misusing presidential powers.

A president can also be removed from office - if they become incapacitated or if they are impeached.

Ireland has a written constitution and impeachment and removal from office is dealt with in the articles.

The articles also say that the president cannot hold any other office or paid position.

YOU were actually the first person here to talk of "a republic" apart from the OP - that is why I and others were REPLYING to you on the subject of a republic.

Yes, OP was the first to talk about republics..it’s right in the OP:
This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

So, I responded to the OP. Hardly the whataboutery crime of the century to respond to the OP….when she said literally “this thread is….to say WTF bring on the republic please”

That’s what this thread was started for. To discuss making the U.K. a republic.
Good on you for discussing republics with me as the OP intended.

The rest I have already answered or explained at length or it is in the Guardian link. Logical fallacies simply arise when you make faulty reasoning and not because you think (or want to think) that someone doesn't understand something.

Yes they do, but I have had no logical fallacies, and it’s abundantly clear from your not knowing/not using the correct terminology several times in the course of this discussion that you actually don’t understand the concepts as well as you think you do. Although I do regularly read the Guardian and it is a decent newspaper, it isn’t infallible. Luckily, I have over the course of my government career had numerous legal courses on the Constitution plus annual refresher training (as it is a living evolving Constitution) so I can spot where journalists don’t get it quite right. If you’re depending on cutting and pasting what a journalist writes in a newspaper to get something this complex right, you will be disappointed.

I am sure this country will not fall apart if we moved to a republic. I think that we will see more and more countries who don't want Charles as their Head of State and will become a republic over the years. I guess they will also develop their own document that is a single written Constitution.

I hope this country will have the chance to lose the Monarchy - and there will no doubt be a single written document to reflect those changes and the changes to how we run our country.

This is a bit weird.

So, after first accusing me of initiating a discussion on the republic (which wasn't actually true, anyway).
You then back-track about that and say you were responding to the OP (which you were and which nobody was actually complaining about, afaik) and then ironically, you quote the OP back at me, even though it was me who first reminded you about what the OP had said.

And then you congratulate me for discussing republics with you?

Are you okay?

So you've been on some courses. Er, haven't we all? and worked for the government. Er..? Er?
I'm genuinely not quite sure what to do with this.
Other than to point out that knowledge doesn't prevent anyone from either ignoring the point or arguing a different point, though.

I'm going to refrain from giving you a quick run down of my courses & career, even though this seems to have become some weird judgement of my knowledge, based on my terminology.

There's no response to any of ^this that won't either turn into some sort of dry dissertation or alternatively into a slanging match (well, more than it already has)

So, moving on.

If you’re depending on cutting and pasting what a journalist writes in a newspaper to get something this complex right, you will be disappointed.

Firstly, it is evident that you're not talking about the same thing as me.
You're talking about the history and system that allows the thing to occur (none of which are at issue) but not the thing itself.

And no, I didn't just rely on a Guardian article:

• I also posted an example, (from the Equality Act) including a link to the actual legislation to which they were referring to and

• I also quoted an Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Oxford, (which summarised the general effect of these specific exemptions) and

• I quoted another example of the sort of clauses I was referring to (which happened to be from the Pension Act) and

• I gave an example of the Education Act as one which doesn't contain the clause giving the specific exemptions, I'm referring to.

Absolutely not a reason to have another, lol. 400 years - lots has changed.