Also I read this this morning. The bookies are all betting on Article 50 never happening. I think that is hilarious Why, do you think? Is there actually a good chance of someone putting a stop to the whole thing somehow? If not the Queen, who or what could introduce some unforeseen snag into the process, or even delay it indefinitely? If there's one thing I know about the law, it's that lawyers can drag anything out for 20 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/brex...-article-50-may-never-happen-2016-7?r=UK&IR=T
And how about this "Royal Prerogative" issue? Look at the current state of affairs you have May running things, who is a Remain conservative, and a currently 'politically neutral' Queen. The Queen has probably lost a fortune due to Brexit, but maybe she is biding her time to see what's truly best for the country/people, how the country takes to it over time. She is certainly no fan of Brussels, but that doesn't make her a Brexit supporter by a long shot, she has a lot more to lose than the common person. Since the Queen has some powers and advises the PM on issues especially related to national sovereignty (and thus treaties), can't she effectively advise the PM not to issue a Royal Prerogative? As of today May says Brexit means Brexit, but if the Queen becomes non-neutral, can that change? And if the Queen said "Remain", what would the people do? Would they trust the Queen and her Prime Minister, or would they revolt? The way I see this shaping up is a potential set of legal challenges that could slow, or even halt Brexit if the will of the people changes while Article 50 remains in limbo, (pun intended). Why can't a referendum be introduced, challenged, and then shot down in Parliament? Why is another referendum between now and 2018 impossible, and why if it were held with opposite results, wouldn't the whole thing get scuttled??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-house-of-commons-leave-europe-a7130851.html
You know an awful lot about how Her Majesty feels, considering she is famous for keeping those feelings private.
Its really rather complicated. The queen does technically own all the land owned by the crown. she loans them to the government in exchange for money. she could take them back if she wishes although its not very likely.
I'm not sure what you mean, didn't I point out she's neutral? That was the official response from Buckingham palace on the Queen's position, which I presumed effectively spoke for the Queen (after her name had been brought up erroneously as a 'Brexit" supporter, it was adamantly denied in an official statement). I don't know the first thing about how she really feels, but as a sovereign, you'd think she must have an opinion one way or another on breaking or making major alliances.
Technically? Yes, but that hasn't been done in....goodness, I don't even know. It would literally make history if she did though as the Monarchy tends to stay out of political affairs for the most part. It would also only be a temporary pause at most, she can't stop the Government going through with the Brexit if they want to . Since a muppet politician decided to use a non-legally binding advisory referendum to win votes and calm down backbench rebels and shot himself in the foot, apparently. Plebiscite democracies & referendums are the tools of dictators and demagogues Agreed. There is a reason the population vote for representatives to do the job of running the country for them. I think although the Monarchy is more symbolic that most MPs wouldn't dare move against the Queen if she made such a declaration. It would be...interesting...to watch. Honestly? That's a much safer bet than I think most people realise right now. Not saying it'll definitely not happen, but there's some real questions to be raised about it all. The vast majority of MPs did not want a Brexit and the City of London as a financial sector has a lot of sway in politics. Guess which way they wanted the country to vote?
I'm hoping you're right, but don't forget that the British government is effectively the executive branch of Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, and Murdoch wants out.
She has more to fear from the CIA, Mr Sloth. Beware, for they have a storied history of foreign intrigue, assassinations, etc. :O
Like our own folks do? I can't imagine May would be the type of person that would do something that warrants her execution though. She's not the type to upset the apple cart too much.
Yeah... that's just silly. Jeremy Corbyn doubtless would have something to fear from the CIA, but Theresa May is one of them.
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'" - Anthony Hilton, Evening Standard
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-edinburgh-to-tell-scots-that-she-believes-w/ She probably knows this isn't likely to happen, which is probably precisely why she is saying it. This may very well be the 'out' they were looking for.
As much as I voted to remain , I think she's playing a very dangerous game. I think the biggest mistake the remain politicians made was to underestimate the passion of the leave voters and fear if they now announce its not going to happen the scale of unrest would be quite scary.
They underestimated the passion, as well as the ignorance. Not only did the leave campaign make things emotional, but many people were completely clueless. Yes, she is playing a dangerous game. As did Cameron in allowing the referendum, as did Boris in getting people to vote leave. In that world, you never quite know if the rabbit will come out of the hat or not. Theresa may is playing a dangerous game, she's already starting out with a worst case result, so if she can somehow keep the UK to remain, she's won. If she doesn't she hasn't lost anything. My guess is this'll take a couple of years, and by then either people will have lost interest, OR she can claim too much time has passed and safely ignore the results of this referendum.
