Brexit: the referendum

quadraginta said:
You may have thought you did, but that statement seems less than explanatory as a response to my question.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm seriously curious. Unwritten or not, is there really some sort of prohibition against one of your royals expressing opinions in public?

What exactly happens to them if they do? Is there an official procedure for censure? Or does everybody just wag their fingers and go , "Bad Queen! Bad! Bad!" and leave it at that?

Is this a commonly held attitude?
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...are-hunting-for-the-queen-backs-brexit-leaker

This is getting a bit off topic, as MikeG usually says. It's rather a complicated subject. It needs a constitutional lawyer to explain it properly.

To try to put it in plain English, people like the Army and police and prime ministers and Cabinet ministers and Leader of the Opposition take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In the world of hot air and poitics the Queen does not write the Queen's speech about government policy when she addresses the House of Commons every year.

In the past in the 1930's, it is generally assumed that George V arranged for a national government of Conservatives and Liberals and Labour when there was a constitutional crisis at the time.

I can't quite see why there needs to be a panic if there is a Brexit, unless the Krauts impose tariffs on British manufacturing, which is below optimum level anyway. That's what the business elite are afraid of.

Personally, I think Prince William and Prince Harry are damn fine chaps. They both have more wide and practical experience than most politicians.

The European Political Union is a purely business transaction. There is no sentiment towards Greece, which is struggling with the refugee crisis, and being a debtor nation, while there is practical encouragement, and many millions, for the new Nazis in Ukraine and Turkey.

The Goldman Sachs central bankers are massively increasing the money supply for bankers by money printing in Europe and America, following the delusions of the late Chicago economist Milton Friedman, and Thatcher and Reagan, but none of it is trickling down to me. Work comes before money.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
No. Not at all. He was at one of the meetings, and he has denied he was one of the sources.



You keep making this mistake. It was different sources from 2 different occasions that, according to the editor, are the basis of the story. In other words, it is alleged that on two separate occasions the queen has said something supportive of Brexit, and this has been told to the paper by 2 different people.
.
Click to expand...
The Sun claims two sources.

One is the Clegg meeting and Gove has been identified by the press as the source. Gove has not denied the accusation. I would have thought that he would have found time within the 48 hours since the leak to deny the accusation if it was not him. The meeting attendees have been identified.

Other than Gove, Clegg and Liz the other four people present at the meeting of the Privy Council at Windsor Castle - according to official Court Circular records - were Cheryl Gillan, the then Welsh Secretary, Lord McNally, who was a Lib Dem justice minister at the time and Judith Simpson, a clerk

Gillan, Clegg and McNally have all denied they were the source. That leaves the clerk and Gove. Gove is pro brexit the clerk is a civil servant, bound by the secrecy act. She will be investigated and sacked if it was her that made the leak.

Neither of us know for sure but who is your money on?


The other source has not been revealed, however as you say it appears to be another occasion not a second witness to the Clegg "bust up". The Sun has so far not revealed what was said on that second occasion, when it was, who it was said to, or who hacked the queen's phone to get it.
 
Darat said:
I strenuously do, if they are discussing political matters when engaging with our elected representatives and other members of the government we should know about it. Her being able to veto bills, bills being approved by her before they go to parliament and so on simply should not happen. The pretence that she is just a figurehead and doesn't meddle needs to be dropped.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Queen makes her opinions known to elected politicians, in private, which are then not supposed to be disclosed by those politicians.

Tim Stanley, on Question Time, was saying that the particular queen that we have now has chosen to be much more private about her opinions than previous monarchs who were much happier to express political opinions in public. I seem to remember reading that George III expressed a lot of anger towards Edmund Burke for his support of the American Revolution, but became much happier with him after his denunciation of the French Revolution and gave him a pension as a result. Tim Stanley talked about how Queen Victoria was not shy of putting her own political views in public. These days, Prince Charles is well-known to have various opinions which could easily be seen as meddling in political affairs.

There are also grey areas such as their use in diplomacy or promoting weapons sales internationally.

The royal website says:

As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters, unable to vote or stand for election.
Click to expand...

But really..."has to remain" - who forces her? "strictly neutral"? How "strictly" does she?
 
On the positive side. Might be nice to see a few British players on Match of the Day. I doubt that all the European players currently here would qualify under the non EU (to be non UK) rules.

Players must have played at least 75% of their country's internationals over the past two years. That will now change according to ranking. Players must play at least 30% of matches in the last two years if their country is in the top 10, 45% if ranked between 11th and 20th, 60% between 21st and 30th and 75% if between 31st and 50th
 
Lothian said:
........Neither of us know for sure but who is your money on?.........
Click to expand...

I don't know or care. I just wanted to get you to stop saying that the only source was Gove. Finally, I might just have achieved that.
 
Darat said:
What is very apparent is that we've fed a pack of lies about her not being involved in politics.
Click to expand...
Have we? Her involvement in politics is not at all apparent to me. I find the City's involvement in politics very apparent, and the arms industry's, Big Ag's, the oil industry's - but Brenda's? What should I blame her for?
 
angrysoba said:
I'm pretty sure the Queen makes her opinions known to elected politicians, in private, which are then not supposed to be disclosed by those politicians.
Click to expand...
This may be so, but one old lady's opinions will have no more impact than any other's (now that Thatcher's dead).

Tim Stanley, on Question Time, was saying that the particular queen that we have now has chosen to be much more private about her opinions than previous monarchs who were much happier to express political opinions in public. I seem to remember reading that George III expressed a lot of anger towards Edmund Burke for his support of the American Revolution, but became much happier with him after his denunciation of the French Revolution and gave him a pension as a result.
Click to expand...
Why stop there? Edward I was very hands-on and as for William the Bastard, well, best not go there.

George III's political activism only led to a reaction which reinforced Parliamentary sovereignty. Just one more piece of the evolutionary process.
 
Lothian said:
If you can find the word only in my posts point it out. Fairly sure I said Gove was the source of the specific leak the sun referred to. I think that is still a fair call
Click to expand...

Are you saying that The Sun referred to one source (one leak) and that the editor of The Sun referred to to two?
 
OK, so we've finally agreed on the facts of the leaks (plural). Now, can you tell me why anyone should give a monkey's about who the sources were, rather than to the substance of the story?
 
MikeG said:
OK, so we've finally agreed on the facts of the leaks (plural). Now, can you tell me why anyone should give a monkey's about who the sources were, rather than to the substance of the story?
Click to expand...
I think I can. Great significance has been attached to Gove's breaking ranks with the Prime Minister on this important question. If in addition he has gone so far as to involve the Queen, so as to suggest that the Queen has expressed disagreement with the policy pursued by the PM, that means that Gove is ready to go all the way on this issue, because Cameron will never forgive or forget such an act on Gove's part.

Therefore the Brexit side is prepared to fight to the death against the leadership of its own party. If you don't give a monkey's about that, you may be right, but I think it's very interesting and significant when disputes of this kind occur
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
OK, so we've finally agreed on the facts of the leaks (plural). Now, can you tell me why anyone should give a monkey's about who the sources were, rather than to the substance of the story?
Click to expand...

For me the issue is that what is said in privy stays in privy. If the civil servant leaked it they would be sacked
If s minister did I would expect similar.

This is a low down scummy thing to do.
The Queen makes sure none of her political opinions are made public. As has-been mentioned she has made an effort not to get involved in politics.

It is a betrayal of trust, knowing she can not even comment on the story as that would give away her true feelings.

There is also the issue that the comments came 5 years ago, before the decision to have a vote was made. We don't know whether her comments were as explicit as reported. I am fairly sure she wouldn't have used the word 'brexit'. Perhaps it was just a grumble. Cameron has been grumbling for years about the EU but still wants to stay in.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
No. Not at all. He was at one of the meetings, and he has denied he was one of the sources.



You keep making this mistake. It was different sources from 2 different occasions that, according to the editor, are the basis of the story. In other words, it is alleged that on two separate occasions the queen has said something supportive of Brexit, and this has been told to the paper by 2 different people.

Perhaps we can stop with the personality stuff now? So what if they are complete pricks anyway? It is irrelevant as to whether or not the queen is supportive of Brexit, and whether or not she said so during 2 different meetings.
Click to expand...

Of course we can only hope that this is not more phone tapping nonsense by the newspapers
 
MikeG said:
OK, so we've finally agreed on the facts of the leaks (plural). Now, can you tell me why anyone should give a monkey's about who the sources were, rather than to the substance of the story?
Click to expand...
One's only access to the substance is through the sources so, yeah, one should give a monkey's about the sources. (One so seldom has occasion to avoid the use of "we", but this is one of them.)
 
Last edited:
Gove....The Queen....Nick Clegg.... she said he said.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In a proper country those three people would have all the relevance and importance of a used chip wrapper.
 
Craig B said:
I think I can. Great significance has been attached to Gove's breaking ranks with the Prime Minister on this important question. If in addition he has gone so far as to involve the Queen, so as to suggest that the Queen has expressed disagreement with the policy pursued by the PM, that means that Gove is ready to go all the way on this issue, because Cameron will never forgive or forget such an act on Gove's part.
Click to expand...
More to the point, if Gove (and, by extension, Brexit campaigners generally) is painted as taking advantage of our much-loved Queen (and she really is well-respected) then it will play horribly for them, mark my words. And particularly for Gove, who never had much going for him in the first place. "A face you could cheerfully step on", as my very polite and moderate mother once put it.

Therefore the Brexit side is prepared to fight to the death against the leadership of its own party. If you don't give a monkey's about that, you may be right, but I think it's very interesting and significant when disputes of this kind occur
Click to expand...
Welcome to the last sixty years of Tory politics. And quite possibly the next sixty, because whichever way the referendum goes that won't be the end of it. Just you watch ...
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Gove....The Queen....Nick Clegg.... she said he said.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In a proper country those three people would have all the relevance and importance of a used chip wrapper.
Click to expand...
Nick Clegg has relevance as an object lesson in what not to do. Or be. Gove serves as a warning to those who think they can disengage from politics. As for the Queen, I think she's handled her role with great tact and understanding while doing no more harm than the average mother under trying circumstances.

Having sorted that, what, to your mind, qualifies a country for the status of "proper"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom