My reply to Mezz.

[Ashu]

This is not a hate thread, please keep the discussion on-track and civilized.

[[KMA]Avenger]

I see no hate anywhere in this thread

what i do see are legit questions and an attempt to answer those questions...ease up man!



@KF,


All the power that parliament executes on a daily basis, is excised on behalf of the monarchy. that power which is claimed by parliament in order to run the country does not rest with either the PM's office or parliament. IE, the power to tax and make laws, is not parliaments, it's the monarchy's sole right to do those things.


Good enough mate?



Edit, the monarchy have also reserved the right to dissolve the parliament, something the monarchy have done 3 times (?) in Canada recently in order the Canadian PM can keep his job.

Just checked, Queen Elisabeth-the head of this Nazi scum breed-dissolved the Canadian Parliament 3 times in the past 3 years.

In news that was alarmingly under-reported even in the alternative media, Queen Elizabeth’s Governor General David Johnston approved Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s request to dissolve Parliament on March 26 for the third time in 3 years. The move came after Parliament’s first ever vote of no confidence against Stephen Harper. Elections have been scheduled for May 2.

As the Times Columnist wrote on March 26:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will visit the Governor General today to dissolve Parliament, setting the stage for a federal election in early May.

The Harper government was defeated in the House of Commons on Friday on a non-confidence motion declaring the government in contempt of Parliament.

It is the first time in Canadian history that a government has been found in contempt.
From Wikipedia:
The governor general alone is also constitutionally mandated to summon parliament. Beyond that, the viceroy carries out the other conventional parliamentary duties in the sovereign’s absence, including reading the Speech From the Throne and proroguing and dissolving parliament.

For those in denial of the Queen’s power over her colony-states, here are previous occurrences:
Canadian PM wins suspension of Parliament

Randall Palmer and David Ljunggren
REUTERS
Dec 4, 2008

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a rare suspension of Parliament on Thursday, managing to avoid being ousted by opposition parties angry over the minority Conservative government’s economic plans and an attempt to cut off party financing.

Governor General Michaelle Jean — the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada’s head of state — agreed to Harper’s request to shut down Parliament until Jan 26. Parliament was reconvened just weeks ago after the October 14 election.
Proroguing Parliament is ‘routine,’ Tories say

CTV News
Dec. 31 2009

While opposition parties accuse the Conservative government of avoiding accountability by successfully requesting Parliament be prorogued for the second time in a year, Tory observers insist it’s nothing more than a routine procedure — and that the move will allow the government to return refreshed and re-focused on the economy in 2010.

The last time he asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament was in December 2008 when he faced the threat of a coalition forming among opposition parties.
Canada’s Rogue Conservatives Prorogue Parliament

This is the second time the ruling party wants to shut down democracy

Michael Werbowski
Global Research
January 5, 2010

This week during the year’s slowest news period, startling reports from Ottawa have revealed that the Canadian conservative Prime Minster, Stephen Harper has prorogued or postponed the opening of parliament for at least a month. With the governor general’s blessings (who according to parliamentary procedure the authority to close down the legislature) he plans to proceed with this scurrilous plot and thereby undermine parliamentary democracy. If all goes according to Harper’s plan, then the House of Commons which is due to resume its New Year’s session on January 23rd will not sit until March 3rd or after the winter Olympics games to be held in February in Vancouver , B.C.

This Machiavellian move is designed to stave off opposition parties’ call for a full public inquiry, which would centre on the allegations of torture implicating the Canadian military, which surfaced during the last session of the House. On the home front, the prorogation of the legislature would also quell growing discontent in the country with the almost despotic tendencies of the current government. This is not the first time parliament has been shut down either. Back in December, 2008, Canada ’s Governor General Michaelle Jean granted the prime minister’s holiday wish and closed down the house just as the opposition sought to bring down the minority government with a non –confidence vote.

————–

Prior occasions of note:

In 1926, Liberal prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, facing a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons over a scandal in his party, requested that Governor General the Lord Byng of Vimy dissolve parliament and call an election. Byng, however, refused his Canadian prime minister’s advice, citing both the facts that King held the minority of seats in the house and that a general election had been held only months earlier; he thus called on Arthur Meighen to form a government. Within a week however, Meighen’s Conservative government lost its own non-confidence vote, forcing the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call elections that saw Mackenzie King returned to power

In Australia, the House of Representatives was dissolved and the Parliament prorogued on 19 July 2010.

Also in Australia: Although Parliament was regularly prorogued in the past, it has been prorogued without an accompanying dissolution on only four occasions since 1961. Two of these, in 1974 and 1977, were for the purpose of allowing openings of Parliament by the monarch during visits to Australia. On another occasion, in February 1968, Parliament was prorogued following the disappearance in the sea of Prime Minister Harold Holt in December 1967. On the fourth occasion, Parliament met for one day in November 1969 following an election for the House of Representatives on 25 October and was prorogued until the following March.

In March 1993 the government restored the practice, not followed since the 1920s, of proroguing the Parliament before dissolving the House of Representatives for the purpose of a general election.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[[KMA]Avenger]

The problem i'm faced with is that it's EXTREMELY difficult to prove what i say because it's been so well hidden. that's not to say i wont even attempt to prove it but i will have to do some searching and see if i can find the proof.


You also kind of proved my point about Canada and Aus, how can the monarchy grant anything when they supposedly don't have any power?

[xDaku]

The monarchy in Canada is represented by the governor general. The governor general has absolutely no power, but sits there as a neutral figurehead in respect of Canada's past. The law that requires the governor general to always agree to the request unless there is evidence that it might harm the country was put in by the Canadian parliament, not the British. Canada's a completely separate entity. The governor general just serves as a homage to the past.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[xDaku]

What I meant was before 1982, that law existed under the rule of the British Empire, and as such the british parliament and not the Canadian parliament would agree to the dissolution. As such it was the laws of the UK under the power of the Queen that granted this. in 1982, the Canadian parliament took this power for themselves and as such the Queen has next to no say in the matter besides signing documents. The queen is required by law to agree to the dissolution unless the opposition party (in most cases) puts up a valid argument with evidence. It's a small technicality but it changes the scope of this "power" quite a bit.

You mentioned in your post that the queen or ruling monarch has to provide the evidence which in Canada at least is not the case. It has to be members of the parliament - usually the opposition and 3rd party.

On that note, was the Queen required to agree to the dissolution in the 50's/60's or was it her choice?